Insulating steam engine cylinders and steam lines

Thanks Ken - pretty much as I thought.
Mike

Something that I have learned from doing(blacksmithing) and not talking is that one of the numerous ways that a blacksmith can employ to make one rod of metal become two rods of metal is to use a chisel to notch two opposing sides of a rod, clamp said rod in a vice and give it a good whack with a 3 - 4 lb hammer. Not even a very hard whack, it will fracture very cleanly at the notch point.

This is a common method among metallurgists and blacksmiths, along with acid etching the fractured face, to determine the crystalline structure of the metal for various purposes. Such as evaluating heat treatment, penetration of hardening or annealing, metal type if the specific type of metal is unknown. I know that there have been contests at blacksmithing meets to see who can determine what type of steel various bars are made of and what heat treatment has been employed on them by examining the face of a fracture.

My point being that the notches produce extreme stress risers and allow a minimal force to fracture the metal along those risers. Kinda like looking for natural fracture lines in stone to break it cleanly. . . sorry I keep forgetting I don't do anything but talk. . .

Scaling from the diagram here: [www.cyclonepower.com]

The approximate length ratio or leverage of the stop pin IMPACT point on the "big end" of the connecting rod that limits the ring around the crank from excessively shifting is 10 to 1.

So, 2" pistons, 3.14 sq in, 3,200 psi that gives a piston force of 10,048 lbs. Lets say the force from 1/3 of a piston is being applied to the whipping action of the ring, with the applied leverage that would be 30,000 lbs of force on the IMPACT point.

What would the inertial force for the impact point be? I don't know, it would depend on the effective mass that is moving, the acceleration of said mass or deceleration in this case, which would be variable depending on speed, it becoming exponential as speed increased.

Safety factors are abundant in engineering.

From Kent's Mechanical Engineers Handbook, 12th edition, Design and Production volume:

"When the strains are complex and of an uncertain amount, such as those in the crankshaft of a reversing engine, a very high factor is necessary, possibly even as high as 40."

The type of force seen in a reversing engine is called a reversing shock load. Where the forces involved are reversed suddenly from maximum one way to maximum the other way.

By comparison a connecting rod or piston rod of a double acting engine requires a factor of safety as small as 12 1/2 to 1, for single acting as small as 9 to 1.

As stated above, shock loads can be as high as 40 to 1.

However the forces for the "fling ring" crank assembly are not shock loads they are IMPACT loads. Here is how to visualize the difference, two guys grab your head, one in front and one behind shaking it violently back and forth, that is a shock load. The same two guys are now alternately punching your head back and forth, this is an IMPACT load. The latter is of course magnitudes greater in effective force applied to your head even if the actual force of the punches are much less then the shaking force.

Even just assuming a safety factor of 40 to 1, the connecting rod should then be designed to handle 1,200,000 lbs force at the point of impact.

This is with one ignoring the stress riser produced at the point of impact on either side of the connecting rod.

As an aside, scaling from the same drawing I estimate the cylinder wall to be .166" thick, giving a wall stress of around 19,277 psi, for aluminum this is very high. The aluminum block that the cylinder is slid into will help add strength to it. . . just like it will help suck heat out of it, just like the cold tubes surrounding the cylinder will.

Caleb Ramsby



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 08:32PM by Caleb Ramsby.

First read Stumps books. He didn'the start with the uniflow design. He started with thermodynamic analysis and good engineering of the day. He thought hot cold end separation would lessen thermal losses. Read the books cover to cover. The uniflow came out of analysis and testing.

There problems with old steam engine designs 8n automobile use. Most work was done for spicific operating power range. Automotive requires many more times the power range they were designed for.

Designing an automotive steam power plant for today's requirements is.a different. How many old steamers can maintain freeway speeds.

Jim could a White do it?

Why do we get so far off subject in these threads. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a summary on some.of these.

Andy

My combustion chamber was made using fire clay and a stainless steal screen wire as the outer part. Except a for insulation outside the fire clay screen structure. Pland an outer shell over that. The on the inside I use fiber glass and fire clay. The fiber glass makes a great radiant heat source. I feal that the life of fiber glass may not be good. I have not run long term tests. Sounds like I may need to check into Harry's parents. I specifically published them on my Web site for anyone's use. I consulted a lawyer first. They are on record and witnessed. That general fore box should be in public domane. My outside boiler drawings were on my Greenhills web site.

Andy

Hey Andy,

Thus far, to a great degree, this is the first thread to delve with any significance into the design elements of the Cyclone powerplants with any scrutiny or critical thinking. The only other ones I can think of are where Harry was answering questions, often with other questions or answer about a different thing.

So, really, this thread has stayed on topic.

I don't know who you are referencing about the Stumpf books. I have read both of them cover to cover numerous times. In general he was more adamant about specific functionality and design then blanket principles. Reference the drastic variance in implementation of his principles for different duties with different dynamic cycles. Of course his principles are the most important part of the book, said principles go well beyond just slapping a ring of exhaust ports in the cylinder and calling it a day.

For the boiler design. I can't speak to the specificity of the furnace construction. What I can say is that to the best of my knowledge your layout, flow path etc. were unique. The Cyclone boiler layout, flow path etc., which they herald to great esteem, is for all intents and purposes identical to your design.

I recall the boiler drawing on your website.

Caleb Ramsby

Hi Andy,
My OO White was paced by a friend in his Jaguar with a calibrated speedometer, windshield down, hooked up as far as it wanted to go, no wind, a steady 500 psi, burner on full and a flat road, did 56 mph.
Just as an aside, Harrah's 1909 O was developing a steady 26 hp at the rear wheels on their chassis dyno.
Thurbers' ex Model M has 2-1 rear end gears and might go faster, the car belongs to Jay Leno now, the big green one. I drove it on two tours; but never went past about 45-50 mph.
Barney Beckers E-14 we did 126 mph once and quit, old tires. The Bonneville car on the test track was timed at 156 mph and I caught hell, we weren't supposed to go over 125 on their test circle at El Mirage dry lake.

Might be a good idea Andy, if our monitor erased some old useless postings and organized them by subject.
Jim

steamerandy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I specifically published them on my Web site for
> anyone's use. I consulted a lawyer first. They are
> on record and witnessed. That general fore box
> should be in public domane. My outside boiler
> drawings were on my Greenhills web site.
>
> Andy


Are they still out there somewhere Andy? I remember seeing them but it would be good have another look.

Thanks
Mike

Jim Crank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Andy,
> My OO White was paced by a friend in his Jaguar
> with a calibrated speedometer, windshield down,
> hooked up as far as it wanted to go, no wind, a
> steady 500 psi, burner on full and a flat road,
> did 56 mph.
> Just as an aside, Harrah's 1909 O was developing a
> steady 26 hp at the rear wheels on their chassis
> dyno.
> Thurbers' ex Model M has 2-1 rear end gears and
> might go faster, the car belongs to Jay Leno now,
> the big green one. I drove it on two tours; but
> never went past about 45-50 mph.
> Barney Beckers E-14 we did 126 mph once and quit,
> old tires. The Bonneville car on the test track
> was timed at 156 mph and I caught hell, we weren't
> supposed to go over 125 on their test circle at El
> Mirage dry lake.
>
> Might be a good idea Andy, if our monitor erased
> some old useless postings and organized them by
> subject.
> Jim

Today's freeway speeds I would expect to be no slower than 60 mph and using accepted established grades. I rode with Ron Thurber in his fully loaded 1909 Model M cruising along at 55 mph at the Bakersfield tour one year. We came off of a hill and he maintain the 55 mph speed on the level for about another mile. I was impressed. The 1908 Stanley 30 hp model M easily maintains 80 mph but can go much faster for short runs. In Calgary, Canada, our 1914 Stanley model 606 10 hp motor with a 20 hp boiler, top folded town and the windshield leaned back, has maintained 70 mph for five miles on a level road. That is as fast as it could do. Speed limit was about 60 mph and my speedometer was pegged at 70. I have cruised the Los Angeles freeways with our fully loaded 1916 Stanley Mt. Wagon maintaining the 50 mph posted truck speed limit. (Pretty rough roads in LA) These antiquated steam cars were the top performers in their day, but their big downfall for nowadays is their poor fuel economy and their required high maintenance. There is no reason why a modern steam car on today's roads using today's technology cannot equal the performance of some of the "middle of the road" modern cars of today. For a while it looked like Cyclone was going to make modern steam possible for all of us and we all were pulling for them.. Unfortunately, Cyclone failed. The new Tesla cars put electric cars back on the road with their PERFORMANCE. Here is looking to the future for someone's else's attempt to put our steam back on today's roads.

Pat
How on earth can you run an unbalanced Stanley engine that fast without damaging it?? Or did you add some additional counterweights to the crankshaft?
If I drove my stock 735 much over 45 mph, the vibration almost rattled your back teeth out.
Jim

If it has the stock 60:60 gearing with the one yard diameter tires, that would be 747 rpm at 80 mph.

From what I can figure from the Rocket data, it was spinning faster then that when it was going 140 mph or 150 mph, whatever it was actually running, back in 1906.

The Model K of the same year, that is 1908, was geared 66:54, giving roughly 611 rpm at 80 mph.

The 735 had 40:60 gearing with a 35" tire giving roughly, 864 rpm at 60 mph. That would be 648 rpm at 45 mph. Smaller tires would of course increase this speed.

This is difficult to figure with precision, since the tires flatten with load and decrease the effective tire radius. So tire pressure has a bit to do with it too.

Caleb Ramsby

This is an interesting conundrum.

The Model M has the 4 1/2" bore by 6 1/2" stroke engine while the Model 735 has the 4" bore by 5" stroke engine.

Rpm per rpm, with equal balancing, the smaller engine should be smoother. I wonder if the longer stroke of the bigger engine allows for more room for the balancing weights. That is allow longer weights, possibly thicker. Thus giving a better balance then the smaller engine.

Fred reportedly wrapped his hands, feet, bum etc. with tape to try and keep the vibrations from numbing him when he was driving the Rocket in 05', they altered the engine for 06' to give a smoother ride. This appeared to be an exhaust and pre-admission, ala lead, issue. It is so difficult to determine this with such limited extant data.

Caleb Ramsby

Jim I have driven my 1906 EX at 50 MPH with 40-78 gears 1200 RPM and I don’t feel the engine shaking. Just me holding on. I must also say still maintaining full boiler pressure.
Rolly

Caleb
All the Stanley are relatively the same just scaled larger. The early 30 HP engine is very fragile compared with last #8 engines.
Rolly

My Model H was also free from vibration at 60mph - 70 is a bit scarey when sat up so high, especially for the passenger! That car has the 3 5/8ths x 5 inch dry engine with the light 3/4 inch frames.

I suspect the problem is that the later heavier engines have bigger crank balance weights and what is felt is the up and down component of the crank rather than the back and forth of the piston, possibly amplified by setting off a sympathetic vibration in the back springs and therefore wheels.

Hey Mike,

Very good point!

On the Triumph Bonneville, its vertical twin with both pistons moving in unison is counter balanced to give a fore and aft imbalance. Their research showed that for the same imbalanced disturbance, people could tolerate the fore and aft movement much better then the up and down. This is of course more pronounced when on a light motorcycle with the engine essentially under you.

In essence the difference between being on a swing and on a pogo stick.

Caleb Ramsby

Hi Caleb,

Do you know if the '69 650 Bonny had that balancer? I learned to ride on that bike. Ended up holing a piston off throttle coming down Hwy 80 from Tahoe. Locked the rear wheel, but thankfully only for a few seconds, clutched out and things cooled down enough to rotate. Rebuilt the engine but I'm not remembering anything special on balancing sytsem. Quite a ridable machine, put many miles on it.

Keith

Hey Keith,

From what I can tell, the 60's Bonnys had their balance entirely done with counterweights on the crank. Always changing the % that was balanced to give better engine acceleration with lesser inertia and better balance with greater inertia.

The late 90's and early 00's revival of the Bonny is the one that has twin balancing shafts. I think that is the one they gave the fore and aft movement to. I seem to recall this being controversial at the time, memory is a bit hazy though as to exactly what they did when and why.

Well, now this topic is officially off track!

Caleb Ramsby

Dear Jim, The small 10 hp Stanley engine (geared 40 to 56) has a lot less engine mass to shake things up at the higher speeds. At 62 mph the vibration begins and it isn't very much worse at 70 mph. Beyond that I do not know how it feels as that is the fast as I have ever driven it. When I got home after that 70 mph run, I had to take up on the clearances, i.e. wrist pins, cross heads. It wasn't good for the engine to go that fast and I have not had it much over 65 mph since. Our 30 hp Stanleys are a whole different story. The 1916 Mt. Wagon has a lot of metal in the later style condensing type rear axle and it seems to dampen the vibration very well. The rear axle assembly weights about 290 pounds all by its self. I have had the Mt. Wagon up to 65 MPH coasting on a down hill and without any steam on it, it was very smooth coasting considering. With the steam on, it starts to bounce at about 50 mph. (geared 50 to 80) I presently have some additional bolt on counterweights on order from REMPCO and that should smooth it out for driving it at 55 to 60 MPH. The new counterweights weights should be here in a couple of weeks. I ordered three pair. One pair for the Mt. Wagon, one pair for our model 85 and one pair for our spare 30 hp engine. Our 1911 Stanley model 85 (geared 50 to 60) has a terrible vibration at anything over 50 mph. It starts to bounce a little at 45 mph and by 55 mph it is really shaking terribly so. By 60 mph, it is insane. It has the lighter rear axle (120 pounds) with very little weight to dampen the bouncing 30 hp engine vibrations. That will soon be fixed. Our 1922 model 735 Stanley cruises along fine at 50 mph. It has a 30 hp boiler so that it can easily maintain 60 mph, but then the condenser cannot keep up and the water tank water gets too hot to pump at that higher speed. Like you said, with 40 to 60 gearing, it is uncomfortable driving at 60 mph, and at 40 to 50 mph, our 735 Stanley has a much bigger fun factor.

Hi,

I have seen only black and white photos, of course, of the Stanley Rocket. Does anyone know what colors the Rocket was?

Thanks,

Bill G.

Bill, The Stanley Rocket was red.

Hey Pat,

I think a lot of the on throttle roughness can be attributed to the bad quality control that the Stanleys had with their engines.

For example from the 1904 MIT test, using a car provided to them by the Stanleys!

For the shorter cutoffs employed for the tests.

Cylinder 1 head end, 25.5%, crank end 14%
Cylinder 2 head end, 29%, crank end 12.5%
Average given as 20.2% cutoff.

Cylinder 1 head end, 22%, crank end 12.5%
Cylinder 2 head end, 25.5%, crank end 9%
Average given as 18.2% cutoff.

That was of course early on and they hadn't been doing much with the cutoff yet, but still, that is no excuse for such poor quality control or valve setting from the factory. The Twins seemed to think that as long as it could run down the road it didn't really matter what it was doing, if it works it works.

Caleb Ramsby

Caleb,
I also have seen some very sloppy things in Stanley engines, different clearances, port shifting, uneven cutoff timing. You might be right, not until later was there any seeming quality control.

There is one thing about the Stanley operation that I would certainly like to have resolved.
As Pat said, it seems they just stretched the drawing out when they wanted more horsepower. That first 30 hp engine I have seen and I wouldn't even try to run a margarita mixer with it, talk about flimsy !!!
OK, probably F.E. did the first ones; but after that was there any real engineer on staff? We know Delling supposedly came in and redid the 735 to become the 740 model, then for comic relief that horrible SV and it's pump drive.
But say from 1914 to 1919, was there any engineer or did F.E. do it all?

Also just for fun and recalling the Stanleys were in the film making business, notice how many engine sizes were identical to the film sizes in those days? 2 1/4 X 3 1/4, 3 1/4 X 4 1/4. 4 X 5 and others like the late 30 hp and even the rail car engines. Just curious.
Jim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2015 06:33PM by Jim Crank.

Hey Jim,

There is a big difference between light and strong and light and weak.

The Maxim 2 cylinder inline compound for example. It used the bar frame type setup, but it used three mains, with six bars. Each of the two cranks being flanked by mains and frames. The crossheads being cast steel cylinders, frame bars being tube type, ditto the cylinders, thin strong.

Stanley on the other hand, four frames inside the cranks, cranks overhanging the frames and mains. Thus giving the oll' twist to the bars.

They learned though, as shown in Douglas Kepharts excellent thread: [www.steamautomobile.com] they continued to beef up the design as the years rolled by.

For the Rocket the Stanleys farmed out the burner to Melrose Automobile Co. 153a W. Emerson St. Melrose, Mass. making the "Natural Kerosene Burner". They later moved to 364 Franklin St. in 1908. I found reference to a booklet they made detailing the burner they made for the Stanleys Rocket.

The Maxim engine was 5.05" bore hp and 8" bore lp with a common 12" stroke, giving 843 ci of static volume total. Its piston valves had a 3" stroke, built to handle around 350 psi, 180 hp continuous per engine. 320 lbs each engine, thus about 2.63 ci per lb for the engine.

[www.douglas-self.com]

Anyone have a good idea of the weight for the early light 30 hp Stanley engines? Static displacement they would be roughly 206.75 ci.

Caleb Ramsby

I weighed a Model 60 10hp 3.25 x 4.25 engine with the 3/4 inch frame rods. 125 lbs.
The Model H engine, 3.625 x 5 inch with the same frame rods was not much heavier.

Mike

Thanks again Mike, I dug up an old post where you were gracious enough to answer this question of mine before!

That would be roughly 70.5 ci for the 10 hp engine, giving .564 ci per lb. For horsepower, say 50 hp momentary output, for 2.5 lbs per hp.

The Maxim would be roughly 1.77 lbs per hp.

The Model H, 20 hp or was that declared a 15 hp, 103.2 ci, say 75 hp momentarily, say 124 lbs. That would give .832 ci per lb and 1.653 lbs per hp.

The Maxim of course being a compound, it would be lighter still had it been a simple.

Ok, I was sure I had asked this before and found the thread if anyone is interested in such things:

[stanleysteamers.com]

The Rocket engine was roughly 1 lb per hp and 1 ci per lb.

Now the question is, how much did the White compounds weigh?

Caleb Ramsby

Andy,you tried to copy Jay Leno by using Hi temp. (1950 F). powder coating on that screen..Jay had a Doble combustion chamber that died.And needed to build new to replace it.Did part in stainless then coated on inside to"firebrick" the stainless.Actually did a Leno garage show on the rebuilding of the Doble combustion chamber to do better than the original after it scorched.It is the same stuff they use on rocket nozzles from what I hear...

Imagine that if cyclone had thought of it, they could have powder coated the aluminum cylinders in high temperature Ceramic powder.To insulate some of that heat you have been talking about going out the cylinder walls.(1950 F. in the cylinder would infra red temp. about 150-200F. on outside of cylinder.)And ceramic makes fairly tough coating ...Bar B que pit has been banged about badly and still no chips or ? on it . I do black high temp. then clear coat in powder to have it shining like a black washing machine,which have been powder coated at the factory since at least the 50's.Doing the stuff at home is the new part....and by doing both inside and out you got a pit that can be touch with your bare hand and
gives less of the bad news from woodfires rusting ,etc.

Where do many of you come up with such misconceptions to make spend so much time making erroneous analysies?
The cylinders have always been very highly polished low conductivity stainless and the piston heads very effectively insulated
with a piston head cap. To draw negative conclusions based upon false premises is not a good engineering methodology.

Hey George,

I could swear that they were using anodized aluminum cylinders early on to give the same expansion rate as the aluminum piston.

If my assumption was wrong, then I apologize. Harry stating that the cylinder temperature doesn't get above 500 F, as I quoted earlier in this thread, indicates a massive heat loss to the cylinders.

I did indicate in an earlier post in this thread that they are using SS piston caps. I stand by my analysis that an aluminum piston via conduction will draw a lot of heat from the cylinder, especially with water all over the place inside the engine.

Likewise a quote from Harry on March 29, 2007:

"I would prefer to heat the head and cool the cylinder. The locomotive engines were low speed and low preasure. Prof. Stumpf said cylinder insulation was not required on high speed engines and I agree. Cool the cyl to save the rings because of the piston speed you will not find the heat loss. Thin high density ceramics do little. you need very low density for insulation. We are using a ceramic paint in our combustion chamber but it is only good for radiant heat and corrosion.
Harry"

From December 28, 2006:

"The cylinder temperatures depend on the rpm of the engine. Is is also an average of the inlet to the exaust. Uniflow is is used There is little cylinder loss in a high speed engine. The top rings take the most abuse as the cylinder temperature drops to the ports.The head should be kept hot as it has the most exposure time. We are using a coil around the cylinder and ports as one of the reheaters so no loss in cylinder temp. If the cylinder temp is too high the rings will not last. Prof. Stumpf also stated it not necessary to insulate the cylinders on a high speed engine."

These are somewhat contradictory statements. If there is no cylinder heat loss at high rpms, that would indicate that the cylinder temperature would be low without cooling. If the cylinder must be cooled, as he states it must with water "lubrication" then that indicates that the steam in indeed heating the cylinder even when at high speed. It can't be both ways.

Looked at any way, a cylinder that sees steam at 1,200 F and doesn't get over 500 F is indicative of serious heat losses from the steam during expansion.

To draw negative conclusions based upon false premises is not a good engineering methodology.

I couldn't possibly agree more. Any and all mistakes I have or will make in my analysis of this powerplant, I would like pointed out to me. My goal is to figure out what works and what doesn't work and why what works, well works and why what doesn't work, uh, doesn't work.

Contrary to the perception I am not out to "bash" the Cyclone powerplant. I just keep seeing bad engineering portrayed as good.

To modify your statement a bit:

"To draw positive conclusions based upon false premises is not a good engineering methodology."

For the MKV they have gone to a rotary valve, as can be seen in the recent videos. Ignoring the leakage and friction from such a valve, there is the issue of using a central valve with "feeder tubes" to the cylinder heads.

This introduces a trade off of design choices. Either one will have a small diameter tube that introduces tremendous losses or one will have a drastic increase in the clearance volume. Neither of which are good.

Running an engine without a steam chest of any sort is something that I saw as bad engineering from day one, back, what 12 years ago. Harry claimed that the engine ran better without a steam chest then the "traditional" ones with one. This simply isn't true, that isn't how fluid dynamics works. That is drawing a positive conclusion based on false premises.

Lets say the boiler tube feeding the cylinder for the initial poppet type valve design was 3/8" od, with 20 gauge wall, that is .035", that gives an id of .305" with a bore area of .073 sq in. The area of the 2" diameter piston is 3.14 sq in. So for each fps velocity the piston has during intake the fps of the steam in the supply tube would be 43 times greater. For a 1/4" tube it would be .18" id for a 20 gauge wall, for a bore area of .025 sq in, for a ratio of 125.6 to 1 for tube velocity to piston velocity.

I could fill a few pages of quotes from Harry where he says that supercritical steam gives a stable pressure and temperature at the inlet valve with no extrapolation much beyond the "magic" my word not his, of the supercritical "fluid". The most simple and basic look at it shows that the suction head alone on that small tube by that comparatively large piston will draw down the pressure.

It is Harry's adamant statements based, as I see it, on flawed logic that have forced me to publicly analyze his powerplant using whatever information I can gleam from what is known as fact.

As I have quoted numerous times, Harry claimed that there are NO throttle, valve or cylinder losses with a unaflow. How does that jive with your statement? You know there will always be throttle, valve and cylinder losses, regardless of the design. With some there will be more, with others there will be less.

I am just trying to figure out what is really going on with the powerplant under discussion. To date there has been no proof what so ever to back up the claims of durability and efficiency attributed to the Cyclone powerplant or its application of principles.

I am writing these analysis to try to determine where the efficiency losses are and what design aspects would limit durability. From what I can see there are a great deal of both of them inherent to the design.

Please feel free to correct any and all mistakes I have made in my analysis. Thus far I have not been able to find any posts analyzing the Cyclone either in a positive or negative light, beyond some basic thermodynamic analysis ignoring many of the mechanical features of the powerplant.

Caleb Ramsby

Caleb,I am puzzled on your remark about anodized aluminum and somewhat caught between you and George on what makes sense on an aluminum cylinder.If your are build a lawnmower or airplane engine with an aluminum cylinder.It is nitrated(use tool grade ceramic),not anodized.for the reason you gave for anodized having the same expansion rate.
Some of the Rotax engines can run thru pure hell on the temperatures without the clearance clanging that much.(aircraft mechanic tends to know more about aircraft on things like this).

All files from this thread

File Name	File Size		Posted by	Date
Chrysler OB.png	20.2 KB	open | download	frustrated	02/20/2015	Read message
psl photo.png	308.9 KB	open | download	frustrated	02/20/2015	Read message
psl head.png	58 KB	open | download	frustrated	02/20/2015	Read message
750 F SES expansion 1 to 7 and half.JPG	76.7 KB	open | download	Caleb Ramsby	02/23/2015	Read message
1000 F SES expansion 1 to 7 and half.JPG	79.5 KB	open | download	Caleb Ramsby	02/23/2015	Read message
1000 F to williams expansion ratio.JPG	83.4 KB	open | download	Caleb Ramsby	02/23/2015	Read message
30 hp axle 078.jpg	492.5 KB	open | download	SSsssteamer	03/03/2015	Read message
30 hp axle 079.jpg	599.1 KB	open | download	SSsssteamer	03/03/2015	Read message