Turbo LaMont

Work has started on a turbine powered circulation pump system that I’ve been thinking about for a while now. My earlier attempts at a forced circulation system ended up with the typical issues people seem to have with that high pressure, high temperature pump seal needed to connect it to a motor. It cannot be purchased, unless you pay out the ying-yang for a manufacturer to custom make one...and fabricating a reliable one has been elusive. I think I have a solution: keep it all internal...inside a pressure vessel...and power the pump using fluid movement and forces that are already there. Water and steam entering and leaving a drum has movement and pressure that can do work.

I know, I know....the name “Turbo LaMont” sounds like an over the top, sensationalized title for something. The word “turbo” is overused and abused nowadays by marketing agencies to describe everything from vacuum cleaners to tax preparation software. I do admit, I tend to lean towards the dramatic sometimes...but I believe this time the description is accurate. A turbocharger in an ICE uses exhaust gas preessure to drive a turbine that drives a compressor that forces more air into the engines intake. The exhaust pressure is already there. It is a usable force that would ordinarily just be wasted out the tailpipe. There are some losses from the back pressure...but it is slight compared to the increase in power and performance it provides. What I propose with my system is the same principle: use a fluid force already present to drive a turbine...that drives a pump (compressor)...that in turn increases overall performance. The name “LaMont” here is used to describe a forced recirculating steam generator using a pump that pulls water from a separating drum, pumps it through the hottest part of the fire...and back into the drum. I like the name “LaMont” because it’s shorter than “forced recirculating steam generator” and most steam folk know exactly what you mean when the Admiral’s name is used to describe a system. I know....there has been some controversy in this forum about a forced recirculating system not being a “true LaMont” if it doesn’t have ALL the exact features of his original design. I’m kinda in Tom Kimmel’s camp when it comes to this...if it has a recirculating pump...it’s a LaMont.

Anywaays...now that’s out of the way...back to the details...

It uses (2) separate drums, much like my previous systems. I like the double drums for they provide a lot of flexibility: extra storage of steam and preheated water, steam / water separation, the simplicity of a water level controlled boiler, and the pressure differential between the drums is useful for flowing water through generating coils. I have achieved decent natural circulation using just two elevated drums with a set of coils between them. The drums will be stacked vertically, in the center of a cyclonic furnace, with stainless steel tubing coiled around them. The economizer section at the top of the furnace will use 50’ of 3/8” stainless steel tubing and empties into the drum on the bottom. That drum has a built in centrifugal pump. It’s actually the same drum I fabricated for the lawn tractor project. The pump outlet is connected to the main generating coil...100’ of 1/2” stainless steel tubing that starts out like an upside down Doble “F” boiler; a single helical coil in the combustion chamber that winds upward then turns into pancake coils after that. The output of this coil goes into the upper drum, where the steam is separated and the carryover water settles on the bottom. When the carryover water level gets to a certain point, a valve is opened that connects the two drums and the system is then in recirc mode, with the lower drums turbine driven pump doing the honors, until the drums water level reaches its low point. Then the valve is closed, putting it back in monotube mode. The feed water pump runs until the lower drum is about 3/4 full...then is bypassed or turned off. Controls for this can be done manually, using two sight glasses...one for each drum...to monitor the water levels. If the level monitoring and valve turning ends up being too constant and distracting...then simple automatic controls could be used.

The fire is provided by the gasoline burner system I put together recently, and will be bottom fired on the tangent. The furnace shell is a 12” x 2’ stainless steel sheet metal cylinder that looks suspiciously like a tall kitchen garbage can covering.

The lower drum assembly was pretty much completed this weekend...with the water turbine and centrifugal pump in place. I did a test using tap water pressure at the inlet to drive the turbine and simulate incoming feed water. It worked great, with a noticeable increase in the outlet flow when the pump was moving. I manually stopped the drive shaft with my hand to compare the flow with and without the turbine / pump engaged. I will post a link to the video of the test once I upload it.

Jamison

Here is a link to the video:

[youtu.be]


Jamison

What is your movie/video software, your videos are great...

Jeremy,

Thanks. I do all video stuff on an iPad, using the built in iMovie app. All the title animations are automatic and adding music, editing, special effects, etc. is easy (and fun) to do on this thing.

Jamison

A turbocharger that uses exhaust gas to enhance intake combustion air Vs a turbine driven off the steam engine exhaust to pump water. Big difference in work load. Now to enhance draft on a solid fuel fire, it's possible that a turbine driven impeller would provide a performance increase, but instead of using a turbine, the exhaust is simply routed out the stack thereby increasing draft velocity.

The steam engine exhaust, any restriction on it will be a negative to shaft horsepower. The amount of horsepower (work) required to run the pump will be the exact same reduction in shaft horsepower, a bit more with thermal loss to overcome in the turbine.

Two areas where nothing is free in a steamplant, the combustion space/heat transfer area and equally important, the engine exhaust. It's possible to control a steam engine with an "exhaust throttle".

And I'm ducking when I type this , but that is one reason I'm not fond of small high speed compound steam engines - the LP exerting back pressure on the HP. A simple HP engine of comparable size and steam pressure will run circles around it.

-Ron

Ron,

The turbine driven water pump does not run off exhaust steam, but is powered by the internal flows in and out of the drums. What helped inspire this idea was the story about George Nutz’s LaMont drum having a 5 psi head at the output (before the pump) simply by directing the steam / water flow into the drum at an angle to create a whirlpool. My idea takes it a step further...use angled nozzles to direct steam / water onto a turbine that is directly attached to the centrifugal pump at the bottom. The video shows how this should work, even though it is powered by tap water pressure. After watching the video again, it seems like it works like a transmission of sorts...trading incoming pressure and velocity for a higher flow volume at the pump outlet. Nothing is free...it is simply tapping off the feed pump and steam flow that already exists in a steam drum, the power coming from the created steam. Presumably, there is extra fuel expended due to the slightly higher load on the feed pump and some losses in the steam generation...but I would imagine that would be minimal...and like a turbocharger...a small loss to run it, but the overall gains make it worth doing.

Jamison

Jamison,

I misunderstood. Sounds like an interesting design, keep us posted.

-Ron

Hi Jamison

Hope You did not forget about "chicken & egg" question. Make initial head to the system. Feed water flow will help.

Good luck,

Serge

Serge,

After the lessons learned from the lawn tractor’s LaMont system, I designed this new boiler to not be dependent on the circulation pump to function. The main coil is gravity fed with water at start up, so making an initial head of steam should be no problem. Even if the built in, turbine driven circulation pump fails...it will still work as a steam generator, using the feed pump to move the water through the coils. The circulation loop can be opened and closed with a single valve that connects the two drums together. If the valve is closed, it will work as a once-through (monotube) type system, with the drums in series with the coils. When the valve connecting the drums is opened...it loops the main coil back into the drum it started in, thus making it recirculate with the built in pump. When the valve is closed (monotube mode), the circ pump acts as a flow booster. Just like a turbo in an ICE, if the circ pump fails the system will still function...albeit with decreased performance.

Jamison

I also teed in my feed water pump to feed into the middle of the two check valves of my circulation pump for backup.

I found this turbine driven oil pump design online that is similar in concept to what I’m doing:

I've been loosely following this, and I gotta tell ya, I just don't understand what is being suggested.

Where is all this flow in between the two drums that is going to have an adequate velocity and volume to power an impeller? Granted there is high velocity in a small volume heated tube, but when the volume increases by a great deal in a much larger centerdrum, there is no velocity, like canoeing on a river with rapids and large bodies of water in between, the large bodies make for a boring ride and result in rowing for propulsion.

Quote: "the simplicity of a water level controlled boiler, and the pressure differential between the drums"

If the drum above and below are connected, the pressure is equal throughout. There is no higher pressure in the top or bottom of the boiler, not even a little bit of difference. There is a bit in a heated coil (temperature difference) that promotes natural circulation but it is quickly equalized with mean boiler pressure.

It can't be, here's why:

Steam temperature and steam pressure, think of them as two meshed gears, whatever one is the other one will correlate to a known value. Have a look at a "steam table". What promotes the expansion of steam from boiler water is a drop in pressure in relation to the temperature. When a boiler is at temperature and unfired, it does not create steam, unless there is a drop in pressure. My Loco, I can shut the fire off and drive nearly a mile on the boiler water creating steam due to the demand and resulting drop in pressure - no fire. Both drums being equal temperature, a drop in pressure in either will promote instant nucleate boiling. The vessels being closed and connected then the pressure is equal throughout.

-Ron

I'll just toss this patent into the discussion.

I have no idea if it worked or not although it does seem plausible. Conceptually it's not a lot different than a jet engine … a working fluid is driven into a heating region whereupon it departs with increased velocity which is then tapped off at the exit. I do wonder if you need the turbine, however. If the fluid enters the round drum tangentially, it shouldn't lose too much velocity and it would tend to accelerate slower water with which it came into contact.

The inventor was a founder of Vapor Corp. and an early SACA member.

Regards,

Ken



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2018 11:04AM by frustrated.

Ken,

Dang it...there you go again ruining an “original” idea with a patent that shows essentially the same concept...from 70 years ago! Well...at least it gives some validation to this design. That’s pretty cool to know it came from a fellow SACA member. I guess we will see if it works or not; I plan on at least having this boiler finished in time for the fall meet...hopefully attached to and powering a go kart.

Jamison

Here is an Ofeldt version utilizing the same working principle:



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2018 12:46PM by Arch-Tone.

Jamison,

I think if a test were to be done, which I've meant to do and never had the time, Build a testbed with a center drum and one coil with proper rise and leave the top off of the center drum. Apply heat to the coil to see what sort of velocity is attained, I'm thinking it would be an impressive velocity and omit the need of a pump impeller.

If I'm looking at it correctly, in the patent drawing above, he's using the velocity out of the coils to power a turbine to feed the coils, this is a bit like the old "instant coffee in a microwave" situation . I really think trying to power a turbine in that manner is going to inhibit natural internal circulation - it will be a restriction.

-Ron.

I enjoy these discussions, please don't take my views as trying to throw water on an idea, if it works, great. It's good to see folks actually building and trying things.

I am happy to ditto Ron on this; please do build and try all sorts of different things. That's where improvements come from. I am reminded of the scene in the animated kid movie "Meet The Robinsons", where a young inventor builds something, it fails, and the Robinson family cheers and applauds his failure, because failures lead to learning, and then to success. A remarkably broad-minded concept for a movie of that type. I guess, to paraphrase a 1980s song, "truth is where you find it".

Not to suggest that this idea would fail. I don't know; it has to be built and tested to find out. But if it doesn't meet expectations, don't worry. There are other ways to use feedwater pressure to boost circulation, some with simple nozzles, and some with nozzles fitted with spring-loaded pintles, like in Hiram Maxim's boiler, which beat the pants off of Doble and other much later steam car boilers in the power-to-weight and steam-per-unit-tube-surface-area departments.

There is also the possibility that with the right design, more numerous and shorter circulating evaporator flow paths might give better results with no extra moving parts, or nozzles, and and that this might be easier to design/build and/or more cost-effective overall. The principle of natural boiler circulation has vast unexplored potential, IMO.. Just "plugging"/suggesting the idea, not discouraging other approaches.

Off topic, I have just completed my [alas, unexpectedly laborious/time-consuming] "P2018" steam car fuel/water/oil pump system design/blueprinting project, and the results look very good. Minimized/simplified machining for fabrication in a modestly-equipped machine shop, maximized off-the-shelf part content, highly cost-effective, and looks very likely to give good service life. As with any machine, this pump system has to be built and run to find out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2018 07:04AM by Peter Brow.

[www.youtube.com]

"Keep moving forward" is actually from a Walt Disney quote. Words to live by, IMO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2018 07:47AM by Peter Brow.

I appreciate everyone’s input and advice and have been doing a lot of thinking about this idea. Ron....don’t ever feel you have to hold back or sugar coat your opinions to me. If an idea is potentially flawed, it’s better to know upfront before putting more time, sweat and money into a project. Don’t worry about being discouraging or “throwing water on an idea”...we need more honest and direct, no BS critics in this world. Thank you, Ron, Peter, Ken and everybody else who “tells it like it is”. There really are no failures...just learning experiences.

On that note...I will continue to build this boiler without the internal mechanisms. There are several potential problems: It would have to be serviceable...so the drums can’t be welded shut. They would need to have bolted on and gasketed end caps...probably not a good thing to have on a fired drum. The tightly wound coils wrapped around the drums would have to be partially unwound just to get to them. There would have to be a shaft packing / seal on the partition between the drums to keep them isolated...again, probably problematic in a fired steam drum. While I designed the system to still work if the turbo pump fails, as Ron pointed out it would create a restriction that would ordinarily not be there. Ceramic bearings are amazingly robust...but the extreme environment inside a steam drum could prove to be too much for even them over time.

I think the solution is what Ken and Peter suggested: get rid of the mechanics and just use aimed nozzles to swirl the water to boost the flow. No moving parts, has been proven to work in other systems and does pretty much the same thing. This will save me valuable fabrication time. It will be an upscaled version of the two drum, pressure differential system that has preformed well for me in the past. I can incorporate the forced circulation mod (like I did on the mini chopper) at the input of the feed pump...or make a dedicated circ pump...so it can still have forced circulation, “LaMont” performance. I know how to make a decent, high pressure pump now...so not a big deal. It will still utilize the 100’ of 1/2” stainless coiled in the same manor described before.

Ok....back on track, and feeling good about the new, simpler direction. It’s a shame, though...the term “Turbo LaMont” sounds so cool...oh well, I guess it’s time to retire this topic...

Jamison,

Thinking about internal jets. This would do away with turbulence in the upper portion resulting in carry over.

One of the biggest problems running a turbine in bearings inside of a boiler is the same "waterloo" to lot of great ideas, boilers are essentially distilleries and cook off water and leave all the contaminates in the boiler - the reason for frequent blowdowns to get rid of it. Steam appliances with small passages, tiny moving parts that rely on small surface areas with pressure for actuation should be avoided. Trying to run some sort of close fitting bearing in that environment would be very problematic.

I only run city water in the Loco and I still get all sorts of black crud coming out, I've been told that is actually result of storing the boiler full with no oxygen, it's a type of corrosion. The tugboat boiler runs lake water and it's got enough silt in it to plant potatoes. I blow it down and store it dry and it doesn't appear to be causing any problems. More then once I've had small passage ways stop up on boiler crud on the car and boat.

-Ron



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2018 01:41PM by IronChief.

Hi Ron,
I like it? What's the exploded view of the top, where the generating tube penetrates the drum/internal tube?

Thanks,
Rick

Hi Rick,

The tube bundle could be fabricated and slid in to the drum and tacked in place, 100% sealing wouldn't be imperative, rather it is only needed to route the velocity to the bottom. At the bottom is essentially the same principle as the steam ejector. Would be interesting to see if this would actually provide some benefit.

The "jets", I would start out with just tubing with no smaller diameter aperture. Running water from wherever, I can really visualize jets stopping up over time. That would be a dry coil with no circulation - not good.

Thinking on this more. Here is a design that uses essentially two funnel shapes connected by a tube in between with cones inside of each. This would direct velocity down and back out on the coil entries. Would it provide any benefit? Gotta try it The real question is, how much volume and velocity is there really, that is why a test bed should really be done to see if there is anything worthy to harness.

-Ron

Ralph Morgan designed this boiler for the American Bicycle Company --- the car was the Toledo steamer. He also built a series of heavy duty steam trucks called, appropriately enough, the Morgan.

I'm in no way recommending the pressurized outer drum, just using it to illustrate some principles. If you look, you'll see that the nozzles ejecting steam from the coils are tangential to the drum and point in the opposite direction of the coil inlets which are also tangential. It would seem he was trying to preserve part of the motion of the steam leaving the coils.

Looking closer, you'll see that the feed water is injected into one of the coils in such a way that it functions as a jet pump … the feed water draws in water from the drum to increase the circulation mass.

Ken

Hi Ron,
Thanks for the thought and idea! Not sure if it would be of benefit either and perhaps the way to do it is with a test unit where you can see what's going on.

On another note, I've been talking with Jamison about using a braided SS wire within the copper generating tubes (used in an Ofeldt). The benefits are to decrease the amount of water to be steamed and makes for a fabrication tool also. The braided wire would have a close fill to full tube volume and will prevent kinking during the coiling process. I am thinking about making a prototype trial system, one coil system. Perhaps I'll have something for the Fall SACA Meet. We'll see.

I think that the best way to generate steam in a hurry is to decrease the water in generator coils and decrease water in the boiler in general. There is a happy medium where you still can maintain a water level control. Otherwise you need to go to a Richard Smith type flow control to feed the boiler because you're essentially a mono-tube boiler. Just some thoughts.

Thanks,
Rick

Hi Rick,

A one-coil test setup is the way to go. I have doubts about filling [clogging?] a circulated steam-generating tube with a cable, but the test rig is so simple, easy, and fun to build and test that I don't want to discourage it. Not to mention that it settles any questions, via first-hand actual results instead of theoretical debates. Now, if it were some thing that needed a million bucks to build and test, and looked extremely doubtful, or even an obviously inevitable flop, then I might try to discourage it for benevolent reasons. Of course, I'd probably get ignored anyway. LOL!

Anyway, one test coil is exactly how I plan to test my current circulating boiler concept, And possibly several others. It's an inexpensive and relatively easy way to find out first-hand what any particular boiler design can do. The developers of the Winslow and Maxim boilers did it, weeded out some no-goodnik ideas, developed better ideas in the process, and got great running boilers in the end. Actually I can think of several other examples of this empirical approach leading to good results, but I'm trying to "Twitterize" my comments lately.

Reminds me of the story about how Edison once handed a glass bulb to an assistant and asked him to find out the internal volume of it. The assistant started measuring various dimensions of the bulb and scribbling calculations. After a few minutes, Edison got impatient, grabbed the bulb back from the assistant, poured water into it, then poured the water into a graduated pipette. Bam, instant empirical results.

Agree with Peter on both statements: The braided cable in the coil, may hinder rather than help and the only way to know is build a test bed. The braided coil in the vapoizer is to reduce volume for faster start up of a slow moving liquid and have a means to clean/drag the carbon out. I think the cable would only serve to restrict natural internal circulation in a water tube. If the aim here is faster startup time, with the proper of amount of heated surface and heat, startup time is of little consequence. If modifications are having to be made in the tubes to get the boiler up to temperature, it's not going to fare well under demand in operation. Again, the test bed will put all the theories to rest.

One thing to remember about reducing volume in the water tube is, they have a propensity to stop up and clog on their own with lack of regular blow downs. Placing further restriction or "traps" in the tube would only hasten this process. A stopped up tube is not good, boil dry, overheat and fail, not catastrophic, but it would end the days steaming.

-Ron

Hi Ron and Peter,
Here is a good link: This is the Model Hydroplane Steam Record
This boat uses very small tubing and demonstrates the capability of reducing the water volume. Note that the tubes do not clog. Not sure what he does to treat the water. I think and challenge Peter on this, that if you increase the velocity, I would call it the mass flow rate to a high degree, water will not leave deposits and clog. I think Chuk discovered this phenomenon also.

OK this is getting more exciting to build a demonstrator coil, one with braided fill and one without. I'm going camping this weekend and using the coleman gasoline burner stove. This will be the control fire I use for the 2 coil test. Reason for this stove is that the back plate will add safety and containment...just in case.

I'll try to have results for the SACA Fall Meet. Also, Ron, I would like to use your video of the Metal Material Generator Test at the Meet. This shows that the type of metal doesn't matter in generating tubes and solidifies my intent to show less is more with water.

Thanks,
Rick

Quote: "This boat uses very small tubing and demonstrates the capability of reducing the water volume. Note that the tubes do not clog. Not sure what he does to treat the water. I think and challenge Peter on this, that if you increase the velocity, I would call it the mass flow rate to a high degree, water will not leave deposits and clog. I think Chuk discovered this phenomenon also."

As Chuk mentioned this is sort of a "chalk to cheese" comparison. It is the time period of operation. Something that is fired up and ran for a few minutes vs something that is operated all day and several days on all sorts of water from different areas of the country, some areas have lime problems, like right here in Michigan over in some parts the central - west side of the state. Lime can stop a boiler tube up pretty quickly. Run a boiler for a long period of time process by distillation hundred of gallons of water in a boiler and it is amazing how much crud is left in the boiler.

The hydroplane boat boiler is essentially forced circulation so natural circulation isn't a concern, it couln't as the coil is horizontal - back to the old thing, the water wouldn't know which way to go.

Sure, you can use any of my videos you'd like. There is a way to download it off of Youtube, or there was anyway. OR stop by and I can put it on a flashdrive for you. Too big to email.

-Ron

Hey Rick,

Do not waste time challenging me, or anyone else. Challenge yourself, by building and testing your ideas. You have an excellent and solidly scientific build/test plan; go for it! Exactly what I am working toward with my own ideas!

Peter



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2018 11:34PM by Peter Brow.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2018 11:32PM by Peter Brow.

Hi Rick,

Many years ago on this forum, somebody mentioned an observation or claim, I think by Peter Barrett, or possibly one of the early steam car developers, that a monotube steam generator set up for extremely high flow speed inside the tube would "scour itself clean". Maybe that is happening inside Chuk's fuel vaporizer tube, the one that gets no carbon build-up even with extremely high fuel vapor temperatures? However, the self-cleaning monotube idea was not received favorably by the steam experts on the Forum.

Of course, with a monotube (water or fuel), the back pressure and velocity can be boosted by mechanical means. In an Ofeldt or other natural-circulation boiler, the only back pressure available is the head of water in the drum(s) and/or downcomer(s). With that kind of circulation pressure head, reducing the flowpath area with an internal cable or smaller tube would not give the high water/steam velocities which were claimed to give a "self-cleaning monotube". In fact, it would reduce the water speed. Unless, maybe, the boiler were made extremely tall, or fitted with a crazy-powerful circulator pump. Or maybe an accelerator jet which uses very high feedwater pressure to recirculate the water.

With the right design, Ofeldts and some other natural-circulation boilers can circulate faster than many Lamont/force-circulated boilers.

Regular blowdowns are important to protect boilers, and things connected to them, from clogging up, when running with ordinary untreated water.

Peter

All files from this thread

File Name	File Size		Posted by	Date
0A51DBA4-EED3-4D7A-A992-4F9B88551966.jpeg	70.8 KB	open | download	Arch-Tone	08/21/2018	Read message
2571540.pdf	360.5 KB	open | download	frustrated	08/21/2018	Read message
turbo circulator.png	100.6 KB	open | download	frustrated	08/21/2018	Read message
893173B6-5595-47A3-9A9B-2C8B0FC6FD51.jpeg	538 KB	open | download	Arch-Tone	08/21/2018	Read message
jet.ofeldt.jpg	103.2 KB	open | download	IronChief	08/22/2018	Read message
funnel.jet.jpg	78.3 KB	open | download	IronChief	08/24/2018	Read message
ABC.png	119.8 KB	open | download	frustrated	08/24/2018	Read message
690981.PDF	268.7 KB	open | download	frustrated	08/24/2018	Read message