Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Advanced

Stanley Pump Question

Posted by Peter Brow 
Stanley Pump Question
February 08, 2018 02:52AM
Stanleymotorcarriage.com says that the short-stroke Stanley pumps, for the 20hp models, had a bore of 5/8" and a stroke of 1.25", with 7/16" brass check valve balls. The long-stroke pumps were 5/8" bore x 4" stroke, with 1/2" balls.

Question: what is the inner diameter of the valve port under the ball?

Figures for other size pumps [10hp, 30hp etc] would be of interest also.

Kent says that the diameter of the ball in a pump check valve should be 1.2 to 1.6x the diameter of the port. I have read elsewhere that the ideal ratio is 1.6. A ratio of 1.2, with a 1/2" ball, would give a 0.41" diameter port; with a 1.6 ratio, the port diameter would be 0.3125". With a 5/8" [0.625"] plunger/bore, both of these valve port sizes seem to restrict the water flow considerably. Then again, a full-flow/zero-restriction ball check valve for a 5/8" bore pump would need a valve ball of 1" diameter, with about a 5/32" travel for the ball!

Actually, I have one other question. I have heard of nylon balls being used in some Stanley pumps, for quieter operation. How long do they last, relative to the brass balls? I weighed 440C stainless and nylon balls, both 1/2" diameter, and got a weight of 8.4 grams for the stainless ball, and 1.2 grams for the nylon ball. The nylon ball was 1/7 the weight of the stainless ball. Seems like that would run quieter, and probably make the check valve seats last longer, but I wonder about the durability of the nylon ball itself in real-world steam car service. If the metal balls last 10 times as long or something, then they might be better overall, instead of replacing nylon balls at extremely frequent intervals.

I have blueprinted several pumps with full-flow valves, including 2 new designs the past few weeks, but I wonder if zero-restriction valves are really necessary, or even desirable overall. Maybe just following proven Stanley pump check valve parameters is the best way to go, at least for a first build.

Peter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 02:55AM by Peter Brow.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 08, 2018 09:25AM
Peter
This is the formula I use to build check valves.

The optimum diameter for the bore that the ball seats on, is 0.707 x OD of ball. (COS 45) This will ensure that the contact angle is 45°.
Lift should be restricted to no more then 1/6 th ball diameter

The minimum diameter of the bore that the ball moves in, is 1.31 x OD of ball. This will just give enough clearance for the liquid to flow past the ball. If the ball is caged It is recommended that 2 x OD of ball is used to provide reasonable flow conditions around the ball.



Rolly
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 08, 2018 09:30AM
Peter
See attached photos and drawings of condensing Stanley pump.


Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 08, 2018 12:06PM
The reason for the stem on the check ball is that with the stem, when the check ball wears in, it always is seated to the same seat on the ball. Without the stem, if the check ball were to roll after the ball was well seated in, the check ball could not now seat on the now irregular ball's face. I use the check balls without the stems. I just change them out often enough to prevent an out of round ball from not working. Stanley recommends 0.050" check ball lift clearance. With adjustable ball check caps, I can fine tune my check balls down to 0.035" for quieter performance. The outgoing check balls will squeal if the outgoing check balls don't have enough clearance. The incoming check balls will not deliver enough water if they are set too close. If any ball checks are set too loose, then they will not only make too much noise, but the check balls will pound out the water pump seats and create excessive seat wear. 10 HP type 6 Stanleys use 9/16" diameter water pump pistons. On our 30 HP type 8 Stanley high speed water pumps, I use 11/16 diameter pistons. I haven't measured our 30 HP low speed for piston diameters, but they do have a longer stroke than does the 20 HP low speed water pumps. The 30 HP slow speed pumps probably have the same diameter as the 20 hp low speed pistons too. The nylon check balls last about half as long as do the stainless steel balls do. However, the nylon balls wear our the pump seats not as nearly fast as the steel balls do. The nylon check balls can be found in the catalogs listed as Delrin 500 Check Valve Balls. They are a grade 2, duPont acetal polymer, and they are not to be used where temperatures will exceed 275 degrees. On newly machined check valves, use metal balls for a few hundred miles to burnish the seats, and then switch to the Delrin for longer seat life and reduced noise. One advantage the the steel balls have over Delrin balls is that when using steel check balls, when your pumps run out of water, the pumps immediately go quiet and that can get your attention real quick.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 08, 2018 05:45PM
Thanks, Rolly & Pat; fascinating stuff!

If the port which the ball seats on is 0.707 X the diameter of the ball, then the ball/seat contact circle is right on the edge where the cylindrical wall of the valve port meets the conical face of the valve seat. This not only allows a smaller, lighter-weight valve ball, but concentrates the pressure and kinetic loads right on that edge, deforming the edge and ball for a good seal. How much of that deformation is permanent, and how much is temporary flex, is an interesting question. There seems to be some of both. Ball and seat materials, operating speed, ball/port size ratio, ball/ball-chamber size ratio, and ball travel/clearance, would affect this; since this tech has seen a lot of road use, guidelines based on "trial and error" operating experience may be close to optimal -- all other things being equal, which of course they may not be.

This ball/port size ratio equals 1.4:1, right in the middle of the 1.2-1.6 range recommended by Kent.

Using the 1.6X ratio would put the ball/seat contact circle entirely up on the conical surface of the seat, away from the edge of the port. Of course, it would also increase the weight of the valve for a given port size.

Besides centering the valve relative to the seat, the guide stem increases the weight of the valve, and the valve travel/clearance is nearly twice as much as Stanley recommended, but on the other hand the guide stem has those flats cut in its side, which looks like it would make the stem and its bore act as a dashpot or damper, same principle as a hydraulic shock absorber in a car suspension. That should slow down and cushion the valve as it opens & closes. This should allow more valve lift without excessive valve noise/wear, in spite of the heavier valve.

It is also possible that the ball & its stem will rotate slightly over time, thus distributing wear around the ball/seat contact circle, similar to poppet valves in IC engines.

Delrin balls wearing out sooner, but making the valve seats last longer, reminds me of the design principle used in the old Victrola wind-up record players. The records were expensive, but the needles were cheap, so they designed it with some superfine hard abrasive grit in the record material, and used cheap soft steel needles which wore out quickly and were replaced for every play. Use a Victrola needle more than once, and it damages the records. Happily, the needles cost 5 cents each, they only take a few seconds to replace, and they are still manufactured & sold in packs of 100. Anyway, maybe the best approach is to treat Delrin ball checks in a steam car pump like Victrola needles; swap 'em out at scheduled "tune-up time" -- like filters, ignition points, etc in older gas cars. "Victrola valves" smiling smiley

Looks like the flow restriction through Stanley check valves is not a problem. Of course these pumps run at relatively low plunger speeds -- 1/4 the piston speed in non-condensing cars. And the engine piston speed is slow to begin with. Now to figure out whether the longer & more difficult to machine pump cylinders and step-down drive of the long-stroke pumps is worth having the pump check valves last ~4x as long. So many tradeoffs.

Peter



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2018 12:08AM by Peter Brow.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 09, 2018 11:37AM
Thanks for the info and pictures, this is one of the most problematic areas of a steam system, check valves.

I like "David's" check valve modification, an O-ring would last quite a long time in that application, is less damaging to the seat and can adjust to irregular surfaces, wouldn't be hard to make.

Those ball stems, are those made in two pieces? Looks like it would be a bugger to machine in one piece.

-Ron
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 09, 2018 01:19PM
IronChief Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

...............> Those ball stems, are those made in two pieces?
> Looks like it would be a bugger to machine in one
> piece.
>
> -Ron

Originally? Not sure. Here is how I would do it. To make the stemmed check balls today, using a collet, mount your stainless ball check ball in the lathe. Use a center drill to get the hole started. Drill a sufficient sized hole in the stainless ball check to provide an interference fit for the stem. Press the stem into place. The check ball stem is also handy for fishing the ball check up and out of the check valve seat. On our 1916 Mt. Wagon, I am still using its original ball checks with their stems, and they are low maintenance.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 09, 2018 01:52PM
Pat and Rolly,

Yes, that ball/stem in two pieces would be easier, then silver solder it together.

Rolly, I found one of your old drawings showing a Watt's regulator for the pilot on a Stanley burner. Do you have the part number for that regulator and it is safe for gasoline? Is it better to regulate the fuel line for the pilot or is it better to mount a pilot tank and then run an air pressure regulator to that?

On my Locomobile, I did just that, I have a main reservoir air tank that is taken up to around 100 psi, then I have two small Watt's regulators, one to the main fuel tank at 50 psi and then another set at 15 psi that goes to the pilot tank. It works fine, although it's definitely not period correct. Does the inline fuel regulator work well?

I'm setting up the fuel automatic/piping for an Ottaway burner and here is my conundrum. I have an original Locomobile fuel automatic, but it's not right for this set up, it has two jets on it, one for the main burner and one to heat the "torch", those early cars didn't have a pilot light, only high and low burner (As I understand it). It's all original and I don't want to start hacking it apart to make it work. I do have a couple of Stanley automatics that have the three way fitting like the one in the drawing. I think I'm going to wind up having to re-spring the Stanley type for lower pressure. They are marked "550" which is a bit too high for this little Conrad carriage.

-Ron


Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 10, 2018 12:16AM
How about a Delrin ball check with a light polymer [PTFE-compounded PEEK?] stem epoxied-in? Light weight plus guided. Groove the ball or cone seat for an O-ring seal? Just brainstorming. For now, at first, I am planning on plain no-stem Delrin ball checks, incorporating Rolly & Pat's dimensions & other advice. Thanks again for the crucial information, guys.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2018 12:06AM by Peter Brow.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 12, 2018 09:13AM
Ron the Watts pressure reducing regulator has a Butyl N diaphragm and is a 0 to 50 LB regulator. It’s been in operation for about eight years with no problems.
Rolly
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 12, 2018 12:40PM
Rolly,

Thanks for that. I'll probably go with a separate pilot tank. If the diaphragm in the fuel regulator were to rupture it would be a big problem, raw fuel spilling out the vent. I'm sure it works fine, but I'd rather not gamble with the fuel system. A separate pilot tank and air regulator is not that much more trouble to set up and it will be safer. And too, can run a different type pilot fuel like white gas (probably will) if desired.

Thanks for the idea though.

-Ron
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 12, 2018 04:25PM
If you look at the diagram the pilot has its own valve and can be adjusted to a very small opening.
The diagram without the pressure reducing regulator is as was original except for pre vaporizing coil above the boiler. With modern gasoline it did not need the coil.
Rolly
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 14, 2018 02:59AM
Rolly,

In the drawing it looks like the regulator is before the pilot valve and there is full fuel flow from the main burner valve, or I'm not understanding it correctly. Seems it should be in between the Pilot valve and the pilot burner.

-Ron
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 14, 2018 09:16AM
Ron you’re correct in viewing the drawing. I wanted to manually vary the pressure to the pilot as they do get carbon’d up somewhat, but start with 30 PSI for max pressure. It would work with the 120 PSI fuel pressure if I changed the valve to a needle valve. If you’re parked for any length of time and you do not want to shout down completely I can turn down the pilot just keeping thing warm.
Rolly
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 14, 2018 09:38AM
""If you’re parked for any length of time and you do not want to shout down completely I can turn down the pilot just keeping thing warm. ""

That is exactly what I need to do on the Locomobile. Set up a way to turn down the pilots if standing for a long period of time.

-Ron
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 14, 2018 05:55PM
Hi Rolly,

What is the side clearance between the plunger and its bore, in Stanley pumps? I noticed the [bronze?] ring at the bottom of the stuffing box in your drawing. Difference between the ID of that ring and the OD/sliding surface of the plunger, I am guessing, is something like 0.001-.0.002"?

I have seen drawings and specs for many different pumps, and the plunger/bore clearance is all over the map, from extremely loose to very tight.. In Clymer's book, the Scott-Newcomb people claimed [?!] that their feed pump plunger was such a close and precise fit in its bore that no stuffing box was needed! I figure I'll start with the clearance that Stanley used.

Peter
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 15, 2018 09:16AM
I don’t remember Peter.
I’ll have to go through some of my Drawings. When I get a Stanley part I take it all apart and measure it up and do a cad drawing. That does not mean it’s correct as Stanley made them as someone before I got it may have modified it. Some of the Stanley pumps have a floating separate bore that can be changed to different bore sizes to increase or decrees the output.
Rolly
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 15, 2018 09:49AM
Peter,

Some water pumps use no "packing", rather it's simply a plunger with O-ring grooves, they are very low resistance and also require some sort of lubrication, cord packing does not. They rely on a continuous bore along the ram and really need to be kept within a few thousandths clearance, ram diameter vs bore diameter.

For pumps with cord packing, as for clearance, all that is really important is that the plunger or ram is mechanically supported and there is some means to make it seal. On the early Locomobile pumps I've worked with, the pump bore is really only in the area of the upper packing gland, the whole interior of the pump was cored out when cast. The piston changes the volume of the pump interior with or without a bore.

So in other words, with external cord packing, you can have as much clearance as you want as long as it is adequately mechanically supported and sealable. If it were straight stroke with no side load, no internal pump bore would really be needed at all to work.

-Ron



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2018 09:53AM by IronChief.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 15, 2018 12:06PM
Peter
I found the Stanley 20 HP pump drawing and added the dimension you were looking for.
When I build a pump from scratch (not for a Steam car.) I pretty much do what Ron described, add one O ring at the end of the piston.
Stanley could get away with loose tolerances as they used braded copper impregnated graphite packing on the valve rode and piston rods. I’m not sure they ever used it on the pumps, at least I never found it on any pumps I have worked on.
I use a copper packing ring at each end of my packing with graphite rings in-between.
Rolly


Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 15, 2018 04:02PM
Hi Ron,

In Marks' "Mechanical Engineer's Handbook", 4th edition, there is a cutaway drawing of a water pump that takes the "no precision plunger/bore fit needed" approach to the extreme. The pump is a vertical pipe, much larger diameter than the plunger, with inlet check at bottom and outlet check at top, and the plunger enters this pipe horizontally from the side, through a stuffing box. The entire motion/displacement of the end of the plunger occurs "crosswise" inside the vertical pipe between the valves -- no "plunger bore" at all!

That looks like a design for use where small size, high speed, and low valve noise are not issues -- the valves and everything are huge relative to the displacement. Not quite what we need for light steam vehicles.

I have seen drawings of modern o-ringed plungers with precision-fit bores, in both amateur and professional pump designs, and some use a sliding "cup" seal on the end of the plunger. I think the steam car plunger pumps used a clearanced bore, and ball checks, to minimize trouble with grit in the feedwater. Later steam cars used filters at various points in the water system, but still generally stuck with the ball check valves and packed plungers. I wonder if avoiding freeze damage was part of the reason -- a film of water between a plunger and close-fitting bore could crack the pump cylinder if it froze, even with the pump drained? Kind of like water getting into cracks in stone, and splitting the stone during a freeze. With lots of clearance between plunger and cylinder wall, draining the pump would leave room/air-gap around the plunger for a few drops of water to freeze/expand without damage.

Speaking of pump draining for standby, one idea I looked at years ago involved setting up the valves like in Rolly's Stanley pump drawing and using magnetizable [is that a word] stainless steel for the balls and ball stops. Then add a little lever with a strong permanent magnet, at each ball stop, on the outside. To drain pump, after boiler blowoff, simply move the levers so that the permanent magnet drops onto the outside of the ball stop. This would lift the ball off of its seat, and keep it there. Similar to the magnetically-lifted pump check valves which Doble used, except without wires, switches, solenoids, electricity, etc.. Lift the levers, and the ball checks are free to open and close again. The levers could be operated from driver's seat via pull-cables or other mechanical linkage, and/or operated by a mechanical automatic control system. When both check valves open, water drains out of water line to feedwater automatic, and out of pump valve bodies and pump cylinders, right back to the tank -- assuming that the plumbing was arranged for gravity-draining. It wouldn't work with a Stanley-style feedwater heater. Also, unfortunately, it wouldn't work with Delrin ball checks. Might be useful for other light steam power systems, though. My current idea for draining pumps, water lines, etc is to give them a shot of low-pressure saturated steam to blow out the water. Or compressed air if the system is cold.

Thanks for the drawing upgrade, Rolly -- really you didn't have to go to all that trouble; I only needed the number. But your pump blueprint is complete now, and perfectly drawn as usual. It is good to have all these details available; very useful information for anyone working on homebuilt new-design or antique-replica feed pumps for light steam power systems. Which I suspect includes a lot more folks here than just me. "When in doubt, use what works." smiling smiley

Packing is a big topic. One steam veteran, some years ago, mentioned the use of waxed string for water pump packing? McMaster lists a "High Pressure Packing For Pumps", p/n12945k4, 1/8" square "graphite-impregnated aramid saturated with an inert lubricant to reduce wear", max pressure 800psi. For engine valve rod and piston rod stuffing boxes, their p/n 9457k5, graphite-impregnated graphite, good to 800F in air and 1200F in steam, seems to be equivalent to the pure-graphite "Garlock 98" packing that Jim Crank reported excellent results with. I have a small reel of it; Palmetto brand. For feed pump plunger, I have some 5/8" silicon bronze rod; needs polishing. Sliding guides in stuffing box zone will also be bronze; pricey stuff, but it seems to be an excellent material for these parts.

Peter
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 15, 2018 05:40PM
Here is the page with the McMaster pump packing I mentioned:

[www.mcmaster.com]

Oops, you have to scroll down on that page to "Heat-Shielding Oil- and Water-Resistant Packing Seals". Lots of other seals on that page in the McMaster catalog.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2018 02:03AM by Peter Brow.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 15, 2018 05:42PM
And McMaster's engine piston & valve rod packing:

[www.mcmaster.com]

Scroll down on that page to "Steam-Resistant Packing Seals". There are several on the page which might be useful, including one kind of graphited packing which is reinforced with Inconel wire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2018 02:10AM by Peter Brow.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 21, 2018 10:39AM
A number of years ago I had contacted the chief packing engineer at Garlock who was of the age and wisdom of understanding old steam engines and after much discussion, after reviewing all their new packings and materials, recommended the old tried and true Garlock 98 for the steam autos we discussed. It does work very well it appears in Stanleys and Dobles.
Just old reflections, George-n
Re: Stanley Pump Question
February 22, 2018 06:46PM
Hi George,

Old reflections are often the most useful ones! Thanks to your comment, I did some searching for Garlock 98 and found a few sources online. For whatever reason, when I first searched for it many years ago, I couldn't find it. Alas, it is only available in costlier, larger sized rolls, not the small quantities available from McMaster. However, it might be worth it, in case the "sounds-equivalent" packing sold by McMaster is not actually equivalent.

What packing do you think is best for Stanley-style water and fuel pumps?

Peter
Re: Stanley Pump Question
March 04, 2018 01:51AM
Hi George,

Not only in Stanleys and Dobles, but I seem to recall Jim Crank mentioning excellent results with Garlock 98 packing in the piston rod and valve stem stuffing boxes of one White steam car. I have ordered/rec'd a 5-foot "Handy-Pak" of "Style PE-1000" pump packing, Palmetto brand, the graphite/aramid stuff previously mentioned, McMaster p/n 12945k4, and will report on results. All feed-water pump parts, materials, and fabrication tools are scheduled to arrive by Wednesday. To solve the age-old conundrum of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?", in this case the "Catch 22" conundrum of "how to run pumps without a boiler, burner, and engine?", [and "how to run everything else without tested pumps?"], I have bought a Harbor Freight "Predator" brand 6.5hp/212cc one-banger gasoline engine. With tachometer and rev-counter, plus of course appropriate pulleys, belts, bearings, etc, this should allow accurate pump testing, and tests on both small-scale and full-size burner and boiler.

Peter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2018 01:52AM by Peter Brow.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
March 04, 2018 06:15AM
212 Predator engine video:

[www.youtube.com]

Looks like a decent unit for test-running steam powerplant pumps.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
March 04, 2018 01:33PM
I purchased the 18 HP Predator for steam engine conversion and the 5 HP to repair my pressure washer. The 5 HP seems a decent engine. I've taken the 18 HP apart and it has electric start, compression release, a balance shaft to cancel primary shake, ball bearings and generally good construction throughout. I'm actually amazed at the quality, for the price.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
March 04, 2018 01:59PM
Peter and Ken,

I bought the 5 HP Predator engine a few months ago for 100 bucks. I was originally going to use it as an upgrade for the mini bike's 2.5 HP engine before I decided to convert it to steam. It did not fit in the frame and had a different shaft diameter....so it would of taken a lot of modifications to install it. Right now it's back in the original box....still a virgin and waiting to be converted to steam. If my small engine, double acting conversion works out....getting ready to run it on live steam today, as a matter of fact....then this lil' beauty might be next. I have to agree with you guys....very good quality for the price.

Ken...how do you plan to covert your 18 HP version? My old lawn Tractor engine is 18 HP as well and I plan on eventually rebuilding it, perhaps the same way I'm doing the mini bike engine.

Jamison
Re: Stanley Pump Question
March 05, 2018 03:24AM
Hi Ken and Jamison,

I watched a few Predator engine videos on YouTube, some containing unintentional humor, and gather that the 212cc unit is a Middle Kingdom clone/knock-off of a popular Honda engine, sold as a drop-in replacement at around 1/4 the Honda's list price. I haven't fired it up yet, but it does look like a quality product. Which is impressive/surprising, considering the "throw-away" price. I have not looked into the 18hp model, but I did see the 5hp unit on display at the HF in Bastrop TX -- probably also a clone of some popular Honda or other small engine. I think the 5 horse model is 173cc, if memory serves, and definitely a quality-looking engine; yall picked a good one. Quite possibly a good candidate for steam conversion ["steamversion"?] too. They didn't have one of those boxed and ready to go, but I had already decided on the 212 anyway. My feed pump calculates out to just about exactly 1hp, but of course that is with zero friction and 100% mechanical/hydrodynamic efficiency, which of course ain't gonna happen. I do not know the efficiency/hp draw of my Stanley-semi-clone feed pump design, and v-belts etc eat considerable HP, plus I don't know the torque/rpm curve of these engines, so I generously multiplied the engine HP to hopefully leave a margin, and avoid "lugging" the engine so I can rack up some decent hours in pump etc tests without the engine stalling or going kerflooey.

The 212, and probably the other Predators, are drilled/tapped for a PTO "nose cone", probably Honda or the like, to take the thrust loads of the belt pulley. For a drop-in replacement, you'd take the cone off of the old engine and bolt it to this one. But the engine does not come with the cone, so I am thinking of putting one of McMaster's shaft misalignment/flex-compensating shaft couplings on the 3/4" standard-key crankshaft end, to connect it to an output pulley on a separate 3/4" shaft, flanked by bearing blocks to take the belt thrust. I may be over-engineering this; maybe the crankshaft bearings can handle the thrust if the output pulley is put directly on the crankshaft end. But I don't think they'd put that PTO cone on there if it didn't need the extra support for V-belt thrust.

One thing I am definitely not going to do is mount the engine to a plywood table or wood block with deck screws and washers, like in some of the YouTube videos! That was one of the "unintentional humor" items I mentioned. Also, the 3-hour "break-in" should be under light loads and at varying rpms, not deck-screw it to a piece of wood, fire it up, and leave it running unloaded at one speed for 3 hours. That, plus one guy leaving the factory bubble wrap whizzing around on the end of the shaft, added more extra unintentional humor to the videos.

To light-load the engine for break-in, I figure add a ball valve and pressure gauge on the water outlet and "throttle" it down to boost output pressure to a couple hundred pounds. After break-in, that valve can be closed more to give the boiler-feeding pressure of 500-1000 lbs on the outlet. Wonder how far that would throw a stream of water!

Lots of stuff in the engine manual to consider. Like, run it for 20 minutes every 3 months so it don't go bad. And add fuel stabilizer to keep the gas from going bad in the pressed-steel [dang it] tank. Would it kill them to use a rustproof plastic tank like the latest B&S engines? On the same foraging trip, I got a bottle of "Sta-Bil" at the Buc-ees in Bastrop -- Buc-ees = cult-following Tex-popular chain of mega-gas-stations with restaurant, snack/car-supply shop, and famously nice bathrooms, basically equivalent to a US "truck stop" or UK "motor plaza", but Texas-sized. The one in [tiny] Bastrop has like 100 fuel pumps and a supermarket-sized store; right on Hwy 71, one of the main veins between Austin and Houston. Cheapest gas in the county; I paid $2.39/gal to refill the Monster Truck with mid-grade. Hilarious cartoon mascot is a crazy-eyed beaver (?) with buck teeth [Buc-ee] and vertical-visor baseball cap. Yee haw. I finally found a state as weird and wacky as me. "Wasn't born in Texas, but got here as soon as I could". Half the people I meet here are fellow economic refugees from pricey anti-biz California. OK sorry way off topic there. Sta-Bil mix ratio: ~1.25 teaspoons per gallon of gasoline. One little bottle will run the small gas engines around here for years. Wonder if it would gum up the burner vaporizer tubes in a steam car? I plan to work out a clean-burn roadworthy burner to run peppy sweeet-running steam cars on dirt-cheap carbon-neutral "net thermal efficiency irrelevant" renewable wood chips. EZ-burn/available-everywhere gasoline fuel/vaporizing burner until then. Long steam car road trips!

[www.tripadvisor.com]

Peter



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2018 04:05AM by Peter Brow.
Re: Stanley Pump Question
March 05, 2018 06:00AM
Hmm. I just watched another "212cc Predator engine" video on YouTube, there's tons of them, and in that one the guy had a standard V-belt pulley directly on the crankshaft end, pushed right up practically against the engine block. No flex/misalignment compensating coupling; no PTO "cone" or bearing blocks. Maybe if the pulley is really close to the crankshaft end bearing, and if the equipment it is driving does not take huge torque/hp loads relative to the rating of the engine, then maybe alignment/thrust issues are not critical? Also, in my app, this is just a temporary test rig. It does not have to run for thousands of hours. Just enough to simulate a few hundred road miles, just so that I know it ain't a "blows up quickly" POS. After that, I can drop-kick this cheap noisy gas banger into a dumpster. Actual long-term durability testing and durability mods will then be done on the road. Under _real_ power. STEAM power. Without the NVH and other issues of a gas engine.

Come to think of it, lots of gas-engine machines which I have seen & run, including my McLane gas lawnmower, just have the PTO V-belt pulley on the end of the crankshaft, close to the crank case & crankshaft end bearing.

Peter
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

All files from this thread

File Name File Size   Posted by Date  
condensing Stanley water pump-s.jpg 47 KB open | download Rolly 02/08/2018 Read message
P4230044.JPG 114.3 KB open | download Rolly 02/08/2018 Read message
P4230046.JPG 80.6 KB open | download Rolly 02/08/2018 Read message
Water pump with David's check.jpg 66.3 KB open | download Rolly 02/08/2018 Read message
Late Stanlet Fuel system modified (2).jpg 68.9 KB open | download IronChief 02/09/2018 Read message
Stanley 20 HP water pump.jpg 74.4 KB open | download Rolly 02/15/2018 Read message
Packing.JPG 856.3 KB open | download Rolly 02/15/2018 Read message
vlave rods and packing-1.jpg 84.8 KB open | download Rolly 02/15/2018 Read message
Pump drive with no Hookup.jpg 31.7 KB open | download Rolly 03/12/2018 Read message
P6150001.JPG 208.2 KB open | download Rolly 03/12/2018 Read message
Pump box.JPG 196.1 KB open | download Rolly 03/12/2018 Read message
Pump drive with linkup.jpg 44.5 KB open | download Rolly 03/12/2018 Read message
img0.gif 19.2 KB open | download Rolly 03/12/2018 Read message
pump blowout..JPG 95.1 KB open | download Rolly 03/14/2018 Read message
Engine driven water Pump #2 1909 Machineing Dr.jpg 100 KB open | download Rolly 04/24/2018 Read message
Engine driven water Pump 1909 Machineing Dr.jpg 135.3 KB open | download Rolly 04/24/2018 Read message
engine pump drive bracket.jpg 72.7 KB open | download Rolly 04/24/2018 Read message
Fuel Pump side fed.jpg 79.2 KB open | download Rolly 04/24/2018 Read message
Oil Pump-2.jpg 109.4 KB open | download Rolly 04/24/2018 Read message
Pump assembly -a.jpg 71.4 KB open | download Rolly 04/24/2018 Read message
Pump pistons.jpg 58.3 KB open | download Rolly 04/24/2018 Read message
Pump pistons.jpg 58.3 KB open | download Rolly 04/24/2018 Read message
Pump support shaft stanchion.jpg 63.8 KB open | download Rolly 04/24/2018 Read message