Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages


Williams ws. Rankin

Posted by Howard Langdon 
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
December 28, 2005 11:46AM

Maybe I got it wrong too, but I thought that the vacuum pump was only removing any air that had leaked into the system. Leaked in air would maintain an atmosperic pressure in the condenser regardless of the steam pressure, and would be an efficiency drain by not allowing the condenser pressure below 15 psia.

Also the pump would vaporize and suck out any moisture from the crankcase. It would have to have it's own little condenser to eliminate any steam from being vented.

--------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
December 28, 2005 01:12PM
Hi Bill

We got into this from talking about over expansion and that back flow could occure with over expansion. Efficiency drops off rapidly when over expanding.

Then Jim brought up maintaining a vacuume in the condensor and then the vacuum pump thing came in.

How does one remove air with out removng steam? I never got that figured out.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
December 28, 2005 06:06PM
Hi all, Don't worry about pumping steam,,it's not likely,,,a few pages back the problem was pump cavation on the Stanley feed water pump at ? temperature as the feedwater heated, from running ,,White knew better, they put a safty valve on the top tank,,A vastly oversize condensing system,,or a keel condenser may be good but simply not practical,short of radical design that I dont see in the cards,, The air will pump OK if you can get hold of it,,and so what if a bit of water/steam follows, ,, ,, the steam will condense at the higher pressure after the pump ,,The pump should be a O clearence thingie,,,haha,,smile , Ben
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
December 28, 2005 08:41PM
Hi guys,

That's what I was thinking, I think.

Take the vacuum from somewhere that air will acumulate and also a cooler spot off the condenser. The vacuum pump then exhausts into a small vertical tube that can be kept relatively cool and the water condenses out of the air and runs back.

Bigger problems to conquor right now anyway.

Again with the compound the condenser pressure should follow the exhaust pressure.

Good Days -------------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
December 29, 2005 10:29AM
Ok Bill, Ben and Howard. What I am trying to figure out is how what jim said would work: "Backflow should never occur if the engine is working with a vacuum in the condenser.
Something that another Besler demonstration drove home most dramatically.
The same engine; but this time the LP diagram shot out far to the xero line". I am assuming xero was a typo ment to be zero. But that sounds like a lot of vacuume to be near zero PSIA. Well maybe we as talking gage PSIG.

Maybe Jim could clearify a bit here. I assumed 0 PSIA form the first sentace: "Backflow should never occur if the engine is working with a vacuum"

What I was talking about is overexpansion when throttling down for low torque. An example with a Stanley sized engine:

Starting with 1000 PSIA steam at 850F. Throttle down to 50 PSIA. 5% clearance, 25% cutoff. The end of expansion pressure goe down to 9.8 PSIA. Wthe exhaust pressure 14.696 PSIA (1 ATM). This is over expansion where efficiency goes to shit. With a 4.5" bore and a 5" stroke 2 cylander DA engine my cycle calculater shows an average torque of ~~ 21 lb-ft.


Re: Williams ws. Rankin
December 29, 2005 03:36PM
Hello Andy,

That cycle doesn't look particularly efficient no matter what one does with it. But some rough figgering.

First we have to assume that the condenser will condense all the steam at full throttle. For this let's give the condenser a maximum pressure of 30psia and 250 degrees F.. Lets also assume an ambiant air temperature of 90 degrees F..

At full throttle I have the end of expansion pressure at 206 psia and the end of expansion temp at 477 deg. The enthalpy at 1255 BTUs. The exhaust has free expanded to 30 psia. The temp now in the 440s range.

The enthalpy at saturation is 1164 BTUs so we have to drop 1255 - 1164= 91 BTUs to get down to saturation temperature. (444 +250)/2 =347 degrees average. 347 -90 gives an average drive temperature of 257 degrees above ambiant. 91/257 = .354 BTUs per degree drive.

From saturation to condensate at 250 degrees we have a drop of 1164 -218 = 946 BTUs. 250 -90 gives a drive temperature difference of 140 deg. 946/140 = 6.757 BTUs per degree drive. So the condenser can do 6.757 +.354 = 7.11 BTUs per degree drive with 90 degree ambiant air.

Now when we throttle down from 1000 psia to 50 psia the density goes from .72455 to 14.66. A ratio of 20.23 or 0.0494 as much steam. This in effect makes the condenser 20.23 times as big as it was at full throttle. It can now get rid of 143.8 BTUs per degree drive.

If the condenser were operating at 10 psia it would have to get rid of 1143.3 -161.2 = 982 BTUs at a drive of 195 -90 = 105 degrees. And 1238 -1143 = 95 BTUs at a drive of about [(396 +195)/2] -90 =205 degrees.

This is: 982/105 = 9.35 BTUs/ degree drive, plus 95/205 = .4634 is a total of 9.81 BTUs per degree drive. This leaves an excess capacity with the condenser of 143.8 -9.81 or 134 BTUs/degree drive. Its going to cool down.

And roughly it is shedding 982 plus 95 BTUs = 1077 BTUs. This divided by 143.8 is 7.5 degrees drive for a condenser temp of 97.5 degrees. A pressure of just under 0.9 psia.

If we have air in the system though the pressure will be somewhere between 0.9 and atmospheric. This is where the small vacuum pump can be so effective by eliminating the air.

So for the above system we ended up with 97.5 degrees with 90 deg ambiant air. If ambiant was 70 deg we would have a condenser at 77.5 degrees and a pressure of less than 1/2 psia. Getting pretty close to that vacuum Jim was talking about.

The bugaboo of course is when throttling down and the condenser is still hot. A good reason not to stash too much condensate in the condenser it'self.

Best to everyone ------------ Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
December 30, 2005 09:24AM
Vacuum pumps are for both removing air and keeping the condenser empty and under vacuum.
Read the SAE report on the McCulloch car and see where they put the vacuum pump, and for a real good reason. Do likewise.

During that experiment, 23" Hg of vacuum was maintained at the condenser outlet. I think about 18" Hg right at the engine outlet manifold.
What was so very easy to see on the scope when the vacuum level was closer to atmosphere, was that the residual steam made the top of the compression phase loop over, showing compression pressure higher than the inlet pressure.

Change the vertical gain on the scope to show just the top of the curve and the little loopover, then increase the vacuum level until it was a really sharp point with no loopover.
Besler and his engineers altered the timing of the piston valve so that this sharp point was preserved at the expected vacuum level in actual service. It was checked again under real world working conditions and altered to suit if necessary.

This is why just guessing on what is going on in the cylinder and with only computer modeling and no real testing, is just a waste of time. One cannot account for all the little losses just on paper, which ADD UP SERIOUSLY AND HARM THE WATER RATE. Modeling is only a rough guide and not enough.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 01, 2006 08:45AM
Hi Andy and Bill,

Big ships have condensers that will condense al the steam that goes through them.
They have a separate air and vacuum pump. It does not take much power to operate these pumps. Jim's system uses a huge pump and the condenser does not condense the steam all the way down to zero. It takes lots of power to operate such a large pump. If you had a big enough pump and two or three times the power of the engine you could pump above vacuum without having a condenser.

Hope this answers your question.

If the condenser does not operate at close to 130 degrees ( I don't remember the exact temp) and condenses virtually all the steam it takes a lot of power to operate the pumps.
I don't see much point in trying to pull a vacuum if your condenser is not large enough to dos the job.




Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 01, 2006 06:56PM
Hi guys,

Jim mentioned a maximum vacuum of 18 inchs of mercury, at the exhaust and 23 at the condenser. That is about 8.9 psia @ 188 deg and 11.3 psia at 199 deg. That is still a significant drop from the 15 psia one would have with air in the system.

As far as the heavy vacuum that would really start sucking steam out of the condenser and recompressing it that would take a large blower and a lot of power. I am sure that both Jim and Bessler would have known better than that.

If we drop to 130 degrees it is about 2.22 psia and 4.5 inchs of mercury.

A large vacuum pump would have been good for the experiment, however. Faster than cooling the condenser to obtain the same results. I believe his points were that the recompression is much affected by the condenser pressure and that overcompression can result from too much back pressure in the condenser. Also that overcompression is an efficiency suck.

The difference between a just right recompression from 8.9 psia and an over compression from 15 psia is 168% more residual steam mass. Exhaust dynamics would change that a bit but it is still a lot more work of recompression than otherwise.

Jims other point is that only so much of in cylinder conditions can be determined without real testing due to too many variables to be reconned with regardless of the computer or paper modeling. Untill we can get our engines onto the test stands though that is all we have to work with.

This would say to me that the prototypes we come up with should be as mechanically flexible as they can be made, so that almost everything can be easily varied on the test stand. Easily changed cylinder sizes, valve timeing, port timeing, everything one can. I intend to design an entire engine so as to have something to shoot for, a system that will come together as a running viable engine.

The prototype though will have to be as flexible and variable as tinkertoys. With luck the whole thing might resemble the base design when the testing is proving itself out. Flexability is the best way I see to approach an engine design on paper and the test bench.

Happy New Year! ------------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 02, 2006 10:22AM
The Roots vacuum pump for a car sized powerplant can be held in one hand and requires about 1-2 hp, which the fan turbine can easily spare. The benefits FAR outweigh the little added weight and drive system, probably a vee belt.
Coupled to the fan turbine for the condenser, or even the draft booster, the speed vs. need ratio is a perfect match.
Removing air and consensate from the condenser, and keeping it under vacuum, are prime requirements for a good system.

Those vacuum levels were obtained by a separate variable speed pump on the outlet of the condenser, just so that the effect of various vacuum levels could be tested on a running engine. The resulting changing of the valve timing was done to maximize the efficiency of that engine.
The water flow to the condenser in the lab could also be varied, just so that the condenser side of the system could be altered to test the results under various condenser temperatures.

Computer modeling is certainly the first step; but all the little losses are not known nor put into the model and they add up. Such things a laminar flow in ports vs. turbulent flow. These cause losses, and will only show up on a competent dyno test stand.
Yes, Besler wanted to see the effect of overcompression, and it most certainly was influenced by condenser pressure, That was the whole point.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 03, 2006 02:21PM
It seams the exhaust vacuume, wether to use a pump or not comes down to system design.

We have to have some pressure differance across the condenser. We have the end of expansion pressure and exhaust pressure. But there is still a lower presssure either generated by a pump or always have exhaust pressure above atmospheric and an atmospheric condensate reservior.

The problem is to design the engine properly. If you have to much compression for the exhaust pressure you will lose power compressing steam higher then inlet pressure. That doesn't mean a big efficiency loss. The Williams handles over pressure compression just fine and with very little loss of efficiency. If any.

I think what Jim observed is the benifical effects of compresssion. If we use free expanson as the exhaust process. Though I can't find a defination of the free expansion process I think it to be isoenthalip(Constant enthalpy, throttling process). When the end of expansion pressure is close to the exhaust pressure there is very little enthalpy gain at cutoff. But as the exhaust pressure and end of expansion pressure differance increasses as exhaust pressure is lowered we are compressing the residual steam to a greater amount getting up to inlet pressure. That increasses the cutoff enthalpy(like supper heatting) and lowers the water rate.

Question. Which is better A or B below?

A. Using pumps to help maintain condenser vacuume.

B. Use a positive pressure system above atomospheric pressure having no pumps.

Assumming the engine is designed/setup to best operate with above condition.

Say it take 2 HP to run the condensate pump. There simply is no way the extra pressure differance can produce that 2 HP. Basic themodynamic laws. It would take much much greater pressure differance than what you can pull with a pump to produce the power to run that pump. At least that is my understanding.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 03, 2006 07:55PM

I still believe that the vacuum pump should only be big enough to remove any air in the condenser system. Trying to change the condenser pressure by sucking harder is a waste of work. Jim and Besler only did that as a test stand experiment to determine the effects of exhaust pressures on the engines efficiency concerning recompression.

On paper over compressing might look like a wash, if the overcompressed steam re-expands before the admission of new inlet steam. It would though recompress to a much higher temperature and loose heat to the piston, and head and probably leakage also due to the higher pressures. A loss of efficiency.

Any mixing of temperatures is a thermodynamic loss. That is why I say that the idea of the Williams recompressing to a much higher than inlet temperature and then mixing the recompressed residual with the inlet steam at two different temperatures is a loss and not a gain. The main gain of recompression is from matching the pressures of inlet and cylinder conditions. Your calculations drove that point home.

I think the William cycle might have seen a gain in efficiency, as the patent stated, by recompressing to a high temperature and thus effecting a higher start temperature of expansion. This to avoid the expansion ending up in the wet steam area. That would be a waste of valuable expansion ratio as wet steam doesn't produce as much work as dry steam.

I suspect that when the inlet steam conditions were in the neighborhood of 7 -800 degrees this was a valid concern. As the inlet temperatures were raised from that to the 1,000 degree area then keeping the expansion out of the wet steam area was less of a concern, and the higher temperatures of recompression become more of a detriment than a benifit to efficiency.

Now an engine can most likely be designed to operate well at atmospheric exhaust or condenser pressure. And yes it is hard to get a lot of work from the lower pressures below atmospheric. The thing is we don't need a lot of work out of this area to make a big increase in efficiency.

Both your design and mine are compounds, and even though they are very different from one another they both have the ability to effectively expand into the lower pressure regions and pick off many extra BTUs of work in that region. Something a single stage engine can not do and still operate with the higher inlet temperatures neccessary for the higher efficiencys that a modern steam engine must produce.

So Andy, I guess that what I'm saying is that I believe that a compound is the best answer, and that to do it's thing it is gonna have to get down into wet steam below atmospheric pressure and pick off that last 50 -60 or more BTUs of work. Whem common materials will allow the super high temperatures, the compound is poised to take advantage of it where the single stage is not. The single stage has closed in on it's efficiency limit with the Williams engine.

Well got to hunting for food -- Best --------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 04, 2006 10:44AM
There certainly is a pressure difference between the top and the bottom of the condenser, simply because of fluid friction between both ends.
Put two pressure gauges across a condenser and see for yourself.

There is more than enough pressure differential, at least in the Dobles, to power the vacuum pump by a belt. Consider that in E-14 and E-23, even with their undersized vacuum pumps, the engine backpressure on the gauge when just cruising along at 60 mph on a level road with full hookup and light throttle, is about 12-15 psig, the vacuum at the bottom of the condenser is about 8"-10" Hg.
This is what powers the draft booster turbine and the fan turbine, and very well produces the power needed. Both are two stage impulse turbines and both were designed for high mass flow; but low pressure differential.

Vacuum use in a steam engine is pure and simple basic thermodynamics. Extend the useful curve on the LP cylinder and you expand further than if you didn't have a vacuum.

This is why I always mention that some years of experience in actually driving these steam cars is the basis of understanding what is going on.
Without it, then it is pure arm waving without any verification.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 04, 2006 06:13PM
Jim "Vacuum use in a steam engine is pure and simple basic thermodynamics. Extend the useful curve on the LP cylinder and you expand further than if you didn't have a vacuum."

Yes that is exactly right. No argument there. But how you get vacuum is most important. Stationary power plants have large cooling tower condensers. They pull a vacuum by condensation. But thoes condensers are very large to be able to pull a vacuum.

It's not so simple as you make it sound. Just having more vacuum does two things. It would give you more power. You would have to change the cutoff to get more expansion for better efficincy for that extended curve you mention. With compression the extra compression from that lower pressure would generate more heat and maybe increase engine efficiency.

Getting vacuum using a pump is an efficiency loss. basic theodynamics. The additionl potential energy of the vacuume has to be less then or equal to the energy it took to run that pump(conservation of energy law). Using the engine as the source of power to run the pump means that even if the pump and it driving mechanism were 100% efficienct the engine is not and you have a net loss. Say you could 30% efficiency out of the engine. That mens that 2/3 and more of the pump power comes from power the engine was already delevering. The pump of course is not generating all of the vacuum. But what ever amount it does must be ballanced against against gains produced.

But in an automobile there is more then just the power system efficiency involved. The vehical weight and air drag are important to overall efficiency and the bottom line MPG.

So if a vacuum pump reduces condenser size (weight and/or volume) you maybe could have some gain.

I have been looking at how the presssure gap from end of expansion to exhaust effects efficiency of a full ompression cycle. Using a throttling process for that drop I found that at some point efficiency starts droping. There is an efficiency increase up to some point and then it reverses and comes back down. It's hard to do with the IFC-67 formulations. You easly run up against it's temperature limit. I set up a compression cycle with inlet at 500 PSIA Had to set temperature at 520F Expansion was set to 100 PSIA and I varied the exhaust from 100 down to the point the compression temperature maxed out at 1472F. Just before running into the 1472 temp limit efficiency leveled off.

At 175 PSIA and 375F inlet pressure and end of expansion pressure at 100 PSIA the efficiency peaks at 35.601 exhaust pressure. 35.6009 and 35.6011 both have lower efficiency. But I had to go down to a low pressure to see the efficiency curve peak. In this case 7.21489617% efficiency at 35.6009. At 25 PSIA exhaust pressure the efficiency drops to 7.01805447% at 75 PSIA efficiency is 6.058094% The steam table calculations are only good to around 4 digits. At higher pressure I am out in the noise digits. Steam is not an ideal gas and has it's Qurks so the drop off may only happen at lower pressures and temperatures. It does flatten at the higher pressure. Need the IFC-95 formulations. Both cycles were set up to have equal cutoff and clearance. So I had around 50% residule steam recycling. That 1472 temperature has been a problem in doing high compression cycles. I know thoes number are higher precesion then the values computed. Only the first 3 or 4 digits are accurate(within formulation precesion).

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 05, 2006 10:21AM
Getting a suitable vacuum in a steam car is easy as pie. When you build your car, I will show you where and how to put in a small Roots pump and how to drive it.
Take a look at the pictures of the Doble auxiliary unit and the pump. Then tell me it is not simple. I don't think for one minute that an added 15 pounds is much of a burden to carry, considering the advantages. Been there done that, as they say.

Large power plants, if you really look at, and understand, the installation, ALL have condensate removal and vacuum pumps to empty the condenser and maintain a vacuum. They are as necessary as the feed pumps.
Smaller marine engines for launches and yachts ALL had vacuum pumps.
Read the available literature and books.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2006 10:24AM by James D. Crank.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 05, 2006 07:54PM
Hi Jim, How many inches of vacuum are you getting with the roots pump.



Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 06, 2006 09:38AM
I like to see about 18"-22"Hg on the bottom of the condenser. Trying to get more than that almost means a welded up system to eliminate any air leaks.
A Roots blower used as a vacuum pump can produce about 26" Hg when blocked off.

Just remember this, it has close fitting rotors, water really helps to seal them, and if you size it correctly, you don't have to spin it super fast. A small one can easily handle what a normal horsepower car steam engine condensate will give it.

A Roots has no internal compression, so it gives X amount of volume per revolution. One just has to size it right and there are dozens of small ones that are used as superchargers, so finding the right size is just a matter of calculating the maximum amount of water it has to see per minute, then spinning it faster than that to produce the vacuum. This can vary all over the place, depending on the speed.
I have a sample Lysholm in my shop that does 1.6 liters per revolution, and it is small for what it can do. Lysholms are not good for vacuum pumps, because they have internal compression, the Roots is much better. Even rubber impeller JABSCO pumps have been used on some steam boats I have seen, and they work very well.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 06, 2006 12:21PM

I am hoping for a much higher vacuum than what 26" Hg will give. That is about 13 psia at 205 degrees F.

A standard modern automobile radiator system is probably sealed well enough to hold a good vacuum otherwise much water would boil out. Not that that is what I am thinking of for a condenser. I am thinking that standard auto type radiators might be used to cool a water/antifreeze mix same as IC practice. This cooled mix would then be used to cool a flat plate heat exchanger with the steam side of it coated with teflon.

Flat plate exchangers have a tremendous amount of surface packed into a small space so the condensing side of the system should be much smaller than a "standard" radiator type of condenser. I think air leakage from the condenser might be easier to control.

Also the water flow into the flat plate exchanger could be controlled in cold weather to stop the system from freezing, a possibility if fresh steam enters a very cold exchanger.

Right now we are at just below freezing temps here in Minnesota. At 100 degrees drive on the condenser system that is 132 degrees or 4.7' Hg, 2.3 psia. To take advantage of it the vacuum pump would have to be able to pump down more than a roots could efficiently do. High vacuum roughing pumps do this quite effectively. They are vane pumps working with enough oil to seal them.

The condensers on steam boats are water cooled. How does the size compare to air cooled?

Best wishes to All ----------------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 06, 2006 06:38PM

26 inches of vacuum, not pressure.

The vacuum pump only needs to be big enough to remove air that gets into a closed system. Once the system is hot, it is too late to vacuum it out because the water continues to boil at a lower and lower temperature as the absolute pressure goes down.

You also have an opportunity to purge with steam pressure, at a loss of efficiency.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 07, 2006 01:24AM
Hello Scott,

Have I got a nomenclature thing backwards here? I am going on zero inchs of Mercury as also zero psia in the condenser, 29.9xx is atmospheric. Always measured vacuum as millimeters of mercury --torr. The worse the vacuum the higher the number.

Hate to think that through out this discussion of vacuum I've been sucking on the wrong end of the barometer. LOL

It would make Jims data make more sense though.

Sincerly --------- The Mad Hatter
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 07, 2006 04:06AM

Just reading the other leg of the column - even inches of mercury comes in absolute and guage - one is simply the inverse of the other. A vane roughing pump doesn't do that much better than the rootes - and the rootes will shift a lot more air for its size - without the noise and wear. We have a rootes blower for the Golfsteam - and a vane roughing pump in the vacuum system for our pilot Biodiesel refinery plant.

We are following a similar line for the condenser system - mostly to deal with the size and the extreme cold we face sometimes here. We don't yet have the practical experience to know if the gains outway the complications - so I am interested to hear if it has been done before in vehicle systems - and what our experienced guys think about that.


Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 07, 2006 10:04AM
I always state vacuum in inches of mercury.
The size of the condenser depends on a whole lot of things, especially the air temperature, let alone the incoming steam temperature.
Don't forget it has to get rid of the heat of vaporization too, the one reason they are so big in a car.
All I can tell you is what I read on the gauges on the dash of three Dobles, and what I recall from the Besler days.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 07, 2006 11:37AM
Thanks Jim,

What condenser pressure (or vacuum) and temperature do the Dobles have when just cruising down the road?

Frank, when you say "similar line", are you talking about a flat plate heat exchanger as I was? I think it would be the most versitile and compact but am worried if there was ever a leak of antifreese into the condenser on into the boiler. Just have to be good construction.

Good things to Everybody ----------- Bill G.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 08, 2006 10:54AM
When the car has the standard two cylinder vacuum pump, and everything is tight, they usually show about 6"-8" on the bottom of the condenser. Those pumps are just too small.
E-14 has the four cylinder pump from the G.M. bus and it used to show 10"-12" Hg.
Dobles never had big enough vacuum pumps, really more like sump pumps.
Warren told me that he intended to design a much larger vacuum pump; but the closing of the company put an end to that.
The E Series Dobles needed a LOT of development work; but that never happened.

The engine exhaust, if I can recall correctly, measured right at the engine outlet and before the draft booster and fan turbine with it's feedwater heater built in, is about 350°F at 12-14 psig. I have no idea what it is in the condenser's top header tank.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 08, 2006 12:59PM
Thanks Jim,

It looks like the turbine was putting out a good percentage of work.

Too bad they had to close down, the Doble was a fine car. Imagine where they could have been by the seventys or even now.

Be Well ------------ Bill G.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 08, 2006 04:28PM

Our fellows have just got to the condenser and keep warm system - then realised they really do need to run the engine on a dyno with real steam to find out just what the real numbers will be. Much confusion now they have to assemble and test a system.

The system you describe though is the current favourite - so they are building a flat plate condenser for testing.

I don't think coolant leakage should be a problem - as you say - just have good construction.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 09, 2006 02:49AM

It is good to hear that something I thought up is actually being built. Don't forget the teflon coating for the steam side.

I had been thinking about the damaging effects of any oil getting into the feed water. The Mobil synthetic that separates from water so quickly is a big consideration. After that there are several types of filters that will remove the occasional drop of oil that may get by.

An occasional drop is probably enough to mess up a boiler eventually. Such a filter should clog and stop all flow if antifreeze leaks into it. That is exactly what we would want.

I thought flat plate condensers were made in many sizes and materials already, There should be something commercial that would do for the testing. Might save some time as generally the first prototype is wrong anyway.

Best of fortune ----------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 09, 2006 10:12AM
BOTH turbines put out a lot of work.
The draft booster raises the firebox pressure from about 3"-4" when firing up, to 18"-20" when really storming up a hill or going over 100 mph. The fan turbine is just screaming along.
Both do just what Warren wanted, high firing rate when really asking the car for more power, and a huge flow of air through the condenser at the same time, just when you need it.
Both Dobles E-14 and E-23 when really going fast up a hill, simply do not show any reduction in steam pressure. The gauge simply quivers at 1200 psi and no steam is blown out the condenser relief valve. A car is not complete without both turbines.

You know how a condensing Stanley blows loads of steam out the water tank vent when climbing a hill? Well, Fran Duveneck's 735 with a Cruban fan turbine completely condensed the steam.
This is why I will not contemplate a new steam car that does not have both turbines.

A VERY thin coating of Teflon inside the condenser tubes definitely improves condensing, freeing the surface instantly of the water film that forms.
It is all these little things that add up to make a successful steam car.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 09, 2006 11:07PM
Jim, I always enjoy reading your posts. Keep them coming. SSsssteamer
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 10, 2006 12:05PM
As always your detailed info on the Doble performance is much appreciated and am sure your book witll be filled with such valuable information. I agree with Pat that your post(s) are very illuminating and are of great joy--what a legendary performance the Doble had after the factory updates. No wonder Howard Hughes bought two of them!
Best, George
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  
ThrottlingTurnDown.pdf 58.1 KB open | download Andy 11/22/2005 Read message
ThrottlingTurnDown.pdf 62.3 KB open | download Andy 11/22/2005 Read message
hydro.jpg 123.5 KB open | download HLS 02/14/2006 Read message
P1010001aa.JPG 113.5 KB open | download Rolly 03/09/2006 Read message
P1010003aa.JPG 66.8 KB open | download Rolly 03/09/2006 Read message
P1010002aa.JPG 65.3 KB open | download Rolly 03/09/2006 Read message
SingleExpansion Vs Co.pdf 111.7 KB open | download Andy 03/10/2006 Read message
SingleExpansion Vs Co.pdf 111.6 KB open | download Andy 03/13/2006 Read message
HLS Vs Compound size.pdf 112.1 KB open | download Andy 03/13/2006 Read message
HLS Vs Compound =PD.pdf 111.7 KB open | download Andy 03/13/2006 Read message
HLS engine.pdf 64.8 KB open | download Andy 03/14/2006 Read message
HLS engine.pdf 73.6 KB open | download Andy 03/15/2006 Read message
Rankin.pdf 171.9 KB open | download Andy 03/15/2006 Read message
HLS engine.pdf 74.6 KB open | download Andy 03/15/2006 Read message
Endiing temp 850.pdf 28.2 KB open | download Andy 10/02/2006 Read message
Endiing temp X27.pdf 28.1 KB open | download Andy 10/02/2006 Read message
Fickett.JPG 66.9 KB open | download frustrated 10/05/2006 Read message
Over Expansion 1.pdf 24.2 KB open | download Andy 10/24/2006 Read message
FlowSpeed.pdf 23.7 KB open | download Andy 11/14/2006 Read message
Material.pdf 16.9 KB open | download Rolly 11/20/2006 Read message
white cliffs project engine.jpg 499.8 KB open | download grblake 06/30/2007 Read message
SV pickup.jpg 81 KB open | download Rolly 07/05/2007 Read message
112908ab.jpg 82.3 KB open | download Jeremy Holmes 11/29/2008 Read message
112908b1.jpg 87.6 KB open | download Jeremy Holmes 11/29/2008 Read message
Dieter engine.pdf 294.8 KB open | download Rolly 11/30/2008 Read message
Bryan Tractor.JPG 108 KB open | download Rolly 12/01/2008 Read message
Bryan Engine photos.jpg 84.6 KB open | download Rolly 12/01/2008 Read message
p1010002aa.jpg 36.4 KB open | download Rolly 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor1.jpg 136.6 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor2.jpg 111.8 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
Tractor3.jpg 137.9 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor4.jpg 159.5 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor5.jpg 113.6 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
tractor6.jpg 98.1 KB open | download frustrated 12/02/2008 Read message
071709a.jpg 77.4 KB open | download Jeremy Holmes 07/16/2009 Read message