Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages


Williams ws. Rankin

Posted by Howard Langdon 
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 11, 2006 06:08AM
Hey Jim,

Me three. Top notch stuff; fascinating food for thought. Keep up the good work. I'm not sold on vacuum condensing yet, but that's coming from a guy who still digs aircooled Volkswagens. smiling smiley


I once calculated that in a condensing Stanley with a 99% oil separator, you could drop McMaster's "Floating Oil Filter" (a mess of oleophilic hollow polyethylene fibers in a porous bag) in the water tank and go something like 100,000 miles with no oil in feedwater. Run the water return from condenser (and vacuum pump?) onto the filter, which floats at water surface and gobbles up oil the way Paris Hilton wears out platinum cards.

Coastal and Chalet now market non-detergent petro-base motor oil, including Chalet 40W, about right for a modern steam car engine. Previously, I thought that AeroShell ND (std. aero engine break-in oil) and the Mobil SHC 634 was about it. Chalet and Coastal are in good supply in lots of auto parts & grocery stores around here. Cheapity cheap. I have some of both and plan mayo separation tests when I get the shop shipshape (the ship shopshape?). I suspect the heavier stuff will separate like crazy. The other end of the scale would be Castrol, which mayos if you drive past a puddle.

Personally, except for a good oil/exhaust separator, already designed, I'm not worrying about oil contamination just yet. In the sub-Cyclone-engine temperature range, a drop of oil here and there might be good, to coat/protect the boiler & water system innards. A drop, mind you, not globs. Some gets thru to the superheater and carbons it after a few years, but eh. Stuff happens. I'm designing to unscrew the thing like a light bulb, dumpster it, and drop in a new one for a few bucks. Not an option with rare artifacts of automotive heritage, where every replacement bit must be laboriously custom handcrafted, but I'm thinking modern production automobile here. At present, despite "100,000 mile no tuneup" claims, real cars need periodic maintenance (oil, air/oil/fuel filters, coolant flush, belts, etc). Zero maintenance, or zero anything, is still merely the stuff of dreams. And as they say, if horses were dreamers, then riders would ride dreams, or something like that. Anyway, tubing's cheap. Plus, thanks to Jim's research, we now know a good carbon cleaner to spruce up those cokey tubes.

I've been thinking a lot about disposability lately. I'm going through a rough "atmospheric re-entry" into today's disposeable world, having to throw out literally tons of stuff (about 5 tons so far, according to truck scale at Miramar Landfill) which I shouldn't have saved, in my continuing nightmare workshop cleanup/reorganization. Lots worse than I ever imagined. It's like being an athlete sidelined for months of strenuous physical therapy. But the cleanup is progressing well, and should be done in a few weeks. Then, actual room to work, vehicle assembly space, clear workbenches, and well-organized tools, parts, & materials for a change. Hard to imagine.

Well, there's my two cents worth, blue-moon progress report, and random ration of infodump, malapropism and design philosophy/controversy. As The Skeleton says in the movie "The Lost Skeleton Of Cadavra", "I sleep now".


Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 11, 2006 10:09AM
In it's day, the Doble was the best on the road, including the Hispano-Suiza. Just too bad Abner couldn't stick with development and stop wasting money on new ideas every morning, as Warren once mentioned.
Even the Doble-Detroit, if it had been developed would have been a very good car. The photos I have of their first monotube generator in 1917 show that they knew that water tube was no good. Then, George, add one more cylinder. Now you have something.

The book progresses very fast now that we have selcted most of the old photos of the various cars. Now into the letters and other ancient Doble documents, like most of their important patents, in Abner's and Warren's handwriting.
Chris, my editor and I, came up with an idea yesterday. Not to have an appendix with all the supporting papers and catalogs; but put them at the end of the appropriate chapter. Now we both see three volumes! Comments?

NEVER underestimate the nasty problems that cylinder oil brings to the table.
Until all these alternates to real superheat steam cylinder oil are PROVEN not to make carbon and gum up the works, what really is needed is a 99.9% exhaust steam separator that is small and can go into the car.
Disposable filter elements too? Not a bad idea.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2006 10:10AM by James D. Crank.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 11, 2006 12:25PM
Hello Jim,

Who exactly is the intended audience for the book?

If it is someone like me then the more the better. And I definitly like the idea of putting the reference material at the ends of the chapters. That makes more sense and is easier reading when the reference material is adding to the book, and not just proving the facts are straight like in a documentary.

We see many historical picture books of motorcycles, WWII airplanes, trains, ships and such that have their flash in a bookstore then the clearance rack then back out the door. With three volumes I don't think that is what you are contemplating. Possibly steam buffs, afficianatoe's, librarys.

At any rate please put me down for a set, and I hope there is a lot of commentary from you in it. Who else could put the Doble into perspective?

Peter, nice to hear from you again as always. I am glad you are working on the oil separation problem as well as the new boiler design. The two do go hand in hand. A replacable superheater seems right. Carbon although not like metal actually transfers a lot of heat. If a superheater started out life with a carbon coating how much larger would it have to be?

I know that Harry conquered the oil problem for the Cyclone with the use of new and different materials. I just can't see that working for my compound design, at least not soon. So oil will have to be metered into the rings and such, minimally but there all the same. Qwestion on how much, if any oil is neccessary for the valve guides?

I finally got the information I need to proceed with the cam design. A phone call to Iskendarian. Their rollers are a lot tougher than Timkins for the size and use the same needles. They will sell the cam rollers, nose rollers, and springs all reasonable for prototyping.

Best to Everyone. ------------ Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 11, 2006 01:55PM
The book will be on general sale via our own web site.
It covers the era, steam cars in that era, the family, the family business, the legal mess and everything that 45 years of collecting Doble material can give.
It goes FAR beyond just the technical stuff.
It certainlly is not just a documentary.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 12, 2006 01:16AM
Hi Jim,

Yep, I've been reading the oil horror stories for years. Hence the labyrinth oil separator, integral with the feedwater heater. Separator elements only add a few cubic inches (and pennies) to the FWH. Needs _road_ testing, of course. As do oils; agree on the various alternatives. Reports on SHC634 have been excellent so far. The 30-40W ND oils are the modern equivalents of what Abner ran all those miles with in the Doble-Detroit prototype. Didn't he also use IC motor oil in the E's?

The McMaster "Floating Oil Filter" is an off-the-shelf unit, about $50 if I recall correctly. Just drop it in the water tank. I'd be willing to bet somebody's already run it in a steam car w/o reporting it. Same type of hollow fibers are used by some green-minded cities to filter oil runoff from rainwater in storm drains. It really grabs the oil, and is highly hydrophobic to boot. Capillary action pulls oil inside the hollow fibers. Used filters can be processed to recover oil and recycle the fibers.

What is the current ETA for the Doble book?

Hey Bill,

Glad to hear that your engine design & component sourcing is moving ahead. Isn't valve design fun? smiling smiley The valve system is the toughest & most crucial part of an engine design. Valve problems killed plenty of my designs on the drawing board.

Tough one on carbon-coated heat exchange tubes. The carbon probably makes a great corrosion barrier, but if formed while running, its thickness & heat transfer characteristics will change over time.

Harry's unique & highly proprietary zero-oil engine is more than just impressive. It's an incredibly tough act to follow. Which is a good thing, for one's own development anyway ... smiling smiley

Kent (1936) on lube:

"The cylinder oil consumption ranges from .01 pint to 4 pints per million sq. ft. of surface swept over by the piston (perimeter of piston x distance traveled), with an average of .8 pint per million sq ft. The average consumption per million sq. ft. will be less in large poppet-valve engines than in small slide-valve engines. Even in engines of the same type and size, there is a wide variation in oil consumption, due partly to waste, to different methods of handling, and in steam and oerating conditions, but chiefly to the difference in texture of cylinder and piston castings. In some cylinders, oil adheres strongly to the walls, in others it does not cling to the surface but is wiped off by the piston and by the moisture, and requires continual replacement ...

"In engines using high-temperature steam (700° to 800°F), the cylinder oil actually is vaporized by the heat of the steam, but if the viscosity is high enough, some oil remains on the surfaces until a fresh supply is injected. If _too much_ oil is supplied, it "cracks" and forms carbon deposits which cause increased [friction] heating and wear..."


With oil injection to steam, and oil-vaporizing steam temperatures, oil vapor condenses evenly on cooler steamed/swept surfaces.

Peter Barrett successfully injected all his cylinder oil through the valve stems. This kept the valve stems plenty lubed, and the excess entered with the steam to lube the pistons. I thnk he was running close to 1000°F. With point lube throughout for ultra-hot steam & minimum exhaust oil, you might try metering the different points in proportion to the local swept surface area. Maybe keep increasing the amount until some carbon appears in a given lube zone during periodic post-test disassembly/inspections, then back off a bit. Not sure if synthetics "crack" like petroleum oils. Any wear while miking parts on inspection, more oil there, of course. R&D means spare parts, sometimes lots of them, depending on degree of departure from proven design. Steam longtimers tell me an engine will "groan" at low rpm with too little oil.

The boiler design is ready to build, but building is on hold for shop reorganization. Tubing, components, and materials are calling to me as I shift them around during the cleanup. New circulator pump design; looks good, and high stock-parts content & "buildability", but man is that gonna be controversial. Top secret for now. Remember the Berrien Springs "McDonald's conference" and the successful circulator discussed there? Seeing is believing. Show me a good demo run, on the road, and I'm off to build it ... or something similar ...

Finished the concrete repair and carpentry on the shop building today. Whew. It's getting there; another quarter-ton or so of junk removal, and I can go nutso with powerplant/vehicle fabrication. Never thought a steam car project would involve this much concrete and lumber.


Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 12, 2006 12:53PM
Hello Peter,

Yeah the intricacys of the cam and valve design did rather take me by suprise. I am glad I got to them before moving further along with the main engine as the available timeing of the valves somewhat changes other parameters.

You remember that nice big port system I showed you with the 1/2 inch valve lift? Well its down to 0.15" lift now. That should still be plenty though. I am hoping that this weekend will be free enough for me to get to the responce time of the valve system.

I believe I have come close to opimizing a high speed variable cutoff design without yet going to the steam pressure activated one. (always something in the background isn't there?) Anyway the calculations should give us an idea of what is doable with a mechanical system. I gather that we all could use that data. Then hope to get the thing built and tested.

Question; is the oil to be separated from the exhaust steam before entering the condenser? I was wondering about the interaction of oil in the steam with the teflon coating in the condenser. I am aware that a coating of oil on the inside condenser surfaces is detrimental to heat transfer. I think I'm aware.

I am hoping to use oil dripped or pumped to the rockers to lube the cam and nose rollers. This would also get to the top of the valve stem which will probably be cooled below 400 degrees. Some oil will get into the valve stem but anything that gets into the steam flow would be heated too much as I'm looking at 1200 deg. more if I use some of the Ultimax concepts. Any Ideas?

Congatulations on getting the shop cleaned and ready. If I were out there we would toast a bottle of champaign to it and have a good cigar. Eager to see results from your initial boiler designs, I am really hoping those weight ratios are a real possibility. Post a picture.

This thing is gonna happen Peter, there will be a modern high efficiency steam engine.

Best of Days -------------- Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 12, 2006 10:29PM
I would like to know more about the McMaster Carr oil absorbant that you refer to in your post. I checked their website but could not find anything that appeared to be what was descirbed.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 12, 2006 11:56PM
Hi Bill,

Low valve lift, yes, way to go. Get that lift way down there. Sounds like you got into the kinetic energy calcs. With any type or level of valve tech, this is a real brain workout.

Yes, get that oil out upline from the condenser. It don't belong in there. On the other hand, not to belabor the Peter Barrett references, but he used special 30W Mobil One ND, and said it went right through his (pretty capacious) condenser, no separator in exhaust steam line, and he still had no measurable water loss -- full condensing -- on many runs. His separating centrifuge then took every molecule of oil out of the water, before it went to the feed pump & steam generator.

Note that the condensing Stanleys (& Dobles I think) used very light cylinder oils in the old days (no longer used, for cautious preservation reasons), to help with the condenser oil clogging problem. I'm looking into this, and also into continously dewatering/recycling the separated oil onboard, a couple very simple ideas there which I want to try. IMO, this is the kind of thing that we need new steam cars for -- to experiment on, and spare the historic classics from excessive tinkering/unoriginal mods, experimental goofs, and damage.

The teflonized condenser, I don't know about. How is the coating applied? I have the same question about oil/ptfe interaction, also heat transfer and durability of very thin ptfe films in knockabout road use. I have a semi-classified condenser design which I want to build/test. In theory (there's that word again), it should condense many times more steam per unit frontal area than an IC radiator. I want to find out.

Inlet valve stems will be under continuous positive pressure, and cannot be externally lubed. The steam pressure will keep the oil out. Maybe inject oil into valve guide, with a very small vented oil exit groove near the steam end? Oil on stem, not in steam.

I think that successful inlet valve stem lube has been done before in hi-temp poppet-valved steam engines, without oiling the inlet steam. Perhaps one or more of those who have done it are following this thread and can comment. For me, this is pure speculation and brainstorming.

Re shop & boiler, thanks, I am looking forward to the final results too. Remember that this steam generator is highly experimental, based closely on proven parameters, but a totally untried design. Another "needs building and testing" item.

I'll post, or at least send, some construction photos when the steam generator modules start coming together. I will be having a professional engineer inspect the plans & components before I fire up anything. Hope he doesn't flunk it for 1000 psi, or recommend too many design changes. However, confidence and safety factors are high.

I think that if successful, a number of the system components which I am designing might be very useful with higher-expansion engines.


Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 13, 2006 12:33AM
Hi Alan,

I only have the print edition of Catalog 105 (1999) handy. Page 238:

"Floating Oil Skimmers"

"Floats indefinitely in your sump, absorbing oil and other industrial liquids while repelling water.

"The filter is nontoxic, and absorbs oil and industrial liquids [ModelWorks office coffee?] on contact."

1" Thk x 8" x 10", absorbs up to 3 lbs, 6 units per package, P/N 44155k68, $7.07 each broken pkg, $5.98 each full pkg.

1" Thk x 10" x 16", absorbs up to 8 lbs, 4 units/pkg, P/N 44155k78, $10.82 bkn pkg, $9.16 each full pkg.

8" Dia x 20" long, absorbs up to 40 lbs, 2 units/pkg, P/N 44155k88, $21.64 each bkn pkg, $18.31 each full pkg."


I think the 8" dia x 20" long unit was the one I calculated could last for 100,000 miles or more with a 99% exhaust separator upline. Current prices will be a bit higher, running I think ~10% more in current catalog. Most part numbers from Cat. 105 are the same in current catalog; their excellent online catalog also automatically lists equivalent products if you type in an old P/N but item is no longer available.

[www.mcmaster.com] of course.

I hope these are still available!


Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 13, 2006 06:49AM
Thanks. The parts numbers are still good. We are currently using oil absorbant cloths in the water tank of our condensing Stanley to skim the oil off of the surface. It does help but the cloths must be changed every 200-300 miles. This floating oil skimmer might just be the trick to cut down on the frequency of changing the media.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 13, 2006 10:48AM
Follow Peters link [www.mcmaster.com] and in the catagory:

"Pumping, Vibrating and Filtering" pick "Oil Skimmers"

The "Floating Oil Skimmers" is the last one on this page.

Hope that is what you are talking about Peter?


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2006 10:52AM by Andy.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 14, 2006 04:09AM
Hi Andy,

Yep, that's the one. Specs seem to have changed slightly since 1999. Slightly larger for the same oil holding capacity.

Hi Alan,

Best of luck with these; hope they are an improvement over the cloths you have been using. I'd be interested to know how they work out in your Stanley. 3 lbs of oil in a little pad the size of a paper notebook, amazing.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 20, 2006 08:10PM
HI Andy I went tothe site they have A lart of good steam stuff
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 29, 2006 07:16PM
HI Jim. How many pounds of steam. Will a Doble E or F put out? Win the booster. Is screening? And the car is doing 100MPH. P.S. The is sum noose on the Williams notes may bee sum of can be let go. In A year or two.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 30, 2006 10:02AM
The late Series E and F Dobles with a draft booster puts out about 1200 lbs/hr under normal cruising conditions (60 mph) with about 8"-10" draft, lab tests.
The electric motor alone, like when steaming up or puttering around town, is some 3" draft.
When full throttle is used, and the draft is up to 18"-20", then the steam generator can produce a continuous 2200-2400 lbs/hr. This is with about 105-110 sq/ft heating surface, the normal modern coil stack surface area, and the most you can jam into the casing and still get it under the hood.

The Lamont can cut the size and weight of an equal output steam generator in half, not to forget the now lack of control problems.
With full use of extended surface tubing, a greater reduction can be had.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 30, 2006 08:16PM
HI Jim. Thanks for the info. Do you no any one. Hoo is renting a big Lamont.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
January 31, 2006 09:36AM
I know of no Lamont that can be rented. In fact, I don't know of one big enough for a car in existance, you have to design and build your own.
The only thing I can think of that could be modified, would be a Clayton package steam generator; but they are low pressure and big.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 03, 2006 08:39PM
HI Jim. The Ping I do not like about the Lamont. Is vat alart? Of tock and no boilers. If there wore 2 or 3 in cars. I would be billdening one. Now. There is sum water tomb boile r vat circulate as well as a Lamont such as the kid will.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 05, 2006 11:38AM
Hi Howard,
Now you see the problem that has gone on for decades. People love to talk about making a brand new highly advanced steam car; but none of them do it.
And the ones that manage to do something are not in the position financially, or with enough engineering skills, to go beyond using a Stanley engine. That proves nothing.
The information to do a good steamer is out there to use; but it takes a lot of money, time, money, shop support, more money, with no return for the vast investment, except for the personal satisfaction of doing it.

I too await a new and up to date design; but will no doubt never see it done. If one shows up, tell me and I will buy one.
Also, Howard, I am not going to do any more steam cars myself, I have spent my life working on them and am simply not going to invest the money or time again.
Why? Because with the one exception for an engineer doing such a hard project and making it work, that is as far as it goes. No one is going to follow up one's work.
I have several more interesting things to do now.
What I will do is pass on what I have learned, and that's it.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 05, 2006 03:30PM
> What I will do is pass on what I have learned, and
> that's it.
> JC

And for that Jim we thank you.

-----------------Bill G.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 06, 2006 06:29PM
Very difficult to understand your post, thought Jerry had provided you with software and a viewing screen so that your very unfortunate poor eyesight would enable you to post clearer messages--we are all supportive of your efforts on this.
The only Lamont of modern times is the one I designed for Rod for his high speed steamboat and as a boat requires full output steam for most of the time and lots of room is available. Thus it was designed larger than a car boiler would be as a prototype. It will out produce any other boiler as far as heat transfer per square foot of boiler surface and with less feet of non-finned tubing than any other save boiler, it is also totally protected under virtually any load variations with the advantage that oils and water salts have no effect or buildup in the Lamont section or superheater. It doesn't require tons of electronic gadetry or 3-5 second responses in terms of control circuits or feedwater response like the SES or other wonder boilers. I disagree with your words that a water tube boiler can equal its circulation or performance, especially when one is limited to a 24"+ boiler heigth. Water tube B&W boilers are great with high vertical heights that provice enough downcomer pressure to guarantee adequate circulation ratio. In a 24" high distance between the centerline steam drom and mud droums on a natural curculation boiler only at best .7psi pressure differential can be achieved and this severely limits the safe heat transfer rates in the firebox, not the case with a 10 foot or 100 foot high B&W type boiler.It disturbs me that people will guess at and try making a boiler without doing a complete thermal analysis but that is just my engineering opinion. Also a natural circulation boiler starts off with a zero circulation rate and that is why most large boilers of this type fail most often during startup. They will also fail with large firing overload as they lose circulation---that does not happen with the Lamont.
The Lamont nails tube temperatures to within 100 degrees of the saturated water tempurature under all conditions and reduces all the stresses and strains during startup of a conventional boiler. Rod's boiler is working magnificiently and hopefully this year will be out steaming on Lake Winni at 20mph. I have also designed a 12GPH firing rate boiler for a private cutomer that would fit in a 20HP Stanley but it has not been worked upon. A 20-30GPH firing rate Lamont would be most feasible but would require at least 500 hours of engineering, possibly 100,000 engineering calculations and like Jim Crank am a little bit weary of such projects.
The easiest way to beat the land steam record is to use a Bryan engine that may produce 200HP(more than the Doble "F"winking smiley and fit a car with two commercially available 26" Stanley boilers, this gives huge overload capacity for a one mile run and 170-180 MPH possible with the right body design. All that stuff is available and 80-100 year old technology but it would get the job done without the expense of a huge requirement of new engineering development.
Be well up in the cold north, George
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 06, 2006 08:45PM
HI George. In or 4 days. I will sand you a long post. P S. I have the 264 williams. And I am doing a 120 mph boat not a car.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 07, 2006 10:27AM
You are chasing phantoms again.
The one and only time I got a ride in a boat at 125 mph was in a Gold Cup three point hydroplane racer on Lake Tahoe. Hair raising is not the word!!
The boat was "Breathless II" and had a souped up Allison V-1710 aircraft engine on alcohol, some 3500 hp, as measured on the Champion Spark Plug dyno in Long Beach, I was there and helped do the tests.
No Williams engine is going to do that under any circumstances.

Just one thing about speed on the water, do you have the $10,000.00 for the prop? Because that is what one costs for a high speed racing boat now, like a Gold Cup. With the special step-up gearbox all those boats used, the prop is turning 12,000 rpm.
A 120 mph boat is in another world, and building one today is like sponsoring a Formula One race car. Huge amounts of cash.

Believe what George has told you and don't think for a moment that he doesn't know what he is talking about, for he sure does. George taught me about Lamonts at the New Hampshire steam tour a few years ago, and he really opened my eyes about just how good the Lamont system really is. After that, I would never consider anything else for a car, or for a boat, for that matter.
One simply has to design and build one from scratch, and do all the heat transfer calculations before making it. Otherwise, failure is the end result.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 07, 2006 03:35PM
Hi Jim
I belive that Howard is taking about a 7liter hydro, a much smaller boat. These boats would run over 150mph and could beat an unlimited hydro on a short course they ran 427cu in engines. I ran a 266 hydro that held the record at 126mph in 1975. The efficency has to be 300 / sq root wt/hp.
Howards boat 1800lbs / 250hp= 7.2
7.2sq rt=2.67 300/2.68=111mph
My own boat was a 21' runnabout type hull and would over 100mph with a stoch 427cu in chevy. Itset a record the first time out then put me in the hospitol.
Thanks for letting me remoness.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 07, 2006 06:03PM
Hi Jim

I have a donut fire box design boiler.


That's not the exact design I am building. but the fire box and tube layout are close. The number of coils are for illistration. So ignore the number of coils in a section. It has the three sections. The evaporator section being next to the fire and the supperheater protected in side the vaporizer coils.

Like you or geroge said. The heat transfer calculations are a bear. So I am taking an expermential aproach. I figure I can come up with a gestimate for the length needed in the vaporizer section. These are small boilers so not to expansive. At any rate I can experment with the vaporize section till I get the steaming rate desired. It is somewhat like a cross flow heat exchanger. I figure by useing a few configuration different numbers of turns, spacing and layers I can come up with a formula. I figure I can use a seperate unit as a preheater to delever close to saturation temperature water to the stand pipe or to the vaporization coil. So I have only a vaporizor section in the expermant. Get the data to size a vaporizor section. The do the same to get the super heater length. Only simpler. The space left may be to small for enough preheater but one or two more rounds wont cost much. 316 or 304 1/4" stainless is going for around $1.25/ft on eBay. The vaporazor section will be less then 40 feet. Not to expansive an experment. Already have 280 feet of tubing to play with.

I am not sure anyone can tell me how to begin to calculate heat transfer form the donut shaped combustion chamber. I know there will be a lot of radiant heat available. But just howmuch is the question. I can find formulas in Mark's for combustion chamber calculaions. But they are for combustion chamber shapes that are nothing like this. Flat wall surfaces etc. Don't have the recirculating of the gasses in their calculation either. I know the recirculating fire in my design will raise the combustion temperature as does an incenerator that uses a simuler circuler fir box..

I don't see were this aproach wont work. It is very much like some of the lab assignments I did for my phisics classes.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 07, 2006 08:40PM
HI Jim. I am a retire raise driver I have a 30 year old outboard bode .vat will do 120mph at
75 % power. You head better look. In the a.p.b0a handbook. May be you can learn about boats
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 08, 2006 09:02AM
If it is a seven liter then they too will do 150. The Murphys had one in addition to their three Gold Cup boats. Breathless I, Breathless II, Movalong and the seven liter was Miss Gale. The head mechanic had one too and I drove it a couple of times, great fun. A 426 Hemi Chrysler. The Gold Cup with that Allison was something else!

Howard's idea is fine; but at what rpm is that Williams going to turn? Then calculate the size of the prop. That is my point in questioning his speed projection.
His outboard is high rpm, the Williams is not, without using a gearbox.

I have the APBA rule book from those days, before gas turbines took over.
So what's in it that is relative? Page number?
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 08, 2006 09:20AM
Hi Andy
I feel you are on the right path. Are you internal or external fired?
You might find what you are looking for in Principles of Heat Transfer by Frank Kreith. I am not as big a fan of the Lamont as others however it is a big improvement over a monotube which is a big improvement over a pot with pipes (Stanley). Each one will fire faster than the other. A Cyclone super critical boiler will reach 500f in 10 to 15 seconds from cold. It is multi tube and fired on the out side spining to use centrivical force to equalize the heat distribution. High preasure stops burnout at high temp. controles are a constant which lessens metal fatigue. 1200f can be reached in about 25sec but you have to have
fast controls because it will climb rapidly and it is necessarry to catch the inerita of the heat climb.
You can get 304 1/4" tube in 50' coils from McMaster Car for $1.00 pre foot
Hi Jim
We belive we are going far beond a stanley and are seriously ingaged in developement. We brought a small engine to SACA and ran it there. An all self contained engine. There will be a running engine at the SAE show in Detroit in April.
Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 08, 2006 12:59PM
Thanks Harry.

Your outside fired boiler is vary much like my design. I think we talked about that at Danvelle. It makes for a much higher area of radiant heating surface relative to the total area.

Actually I can go Lamont or not. I would have the stand pipe in either case. I found a steam generator design described in the old light steam mag that is used on the dry cleaning industry. It uses a stand pipe simular to the Lamont. But is a once through design. The output from the generator coil is piped into the stand pipe well below water level. Water level can be controled in several ways. I use different rates. At the high firing rate you have more heat then acturally needed and we get supper heated steam going into the stand pipe. At the lower firing level we don't have enough heat to evaporate all of the water and we get wet steam going into the stand pipe. When the water level is high we use high firing and the supperheated steam bubbling up through the water at saturation temperature transfers it's supperheat to the water. Some water is evaporated in the process and lowers the water level. At low water low firing is used and we have wet steam entering the stand pipe. The saturated vapor simply bubles up through the saturated liquid. The water content of the wet steam simply stays water adding to the stand pipes water content rasing the water level. No recirculation pump.

Break the conection between the econimizer section and vaporizor put in recirculation plumbing ala Lamont and I have a Lamont. Can go eather way. Control a bit different. But will be able to make comparsons between both types. Both have good control. I like the Lamont non-corbonizing, non-depositing attributes but dislike the circulation pump. Another control for my non-lamont is high/low pump rate to maintain water level.

Another idea I am thinking about is using a donkey pump in series with the engine. Actually plumbed between the stand pipe and the supperheater so it i always running on saturated steam. Not the normal donkey pump. The volume ratio of saturated steam to inlet feed water is around 26.7:1 at 1480 psia. 1 pound of steam occupies 27.6 times the volume as 1 pound of feed water. So this donkey pump would have the steam cylander having around 20 times the volume as the water cylander displacements. That means it would take around 1/20 the pressure differance across the steam pump cylander as the boiler pressure. Running 1537 PSIA you would have a 57 psia pressure drop across the steam cylander giving 1480 PSIA going to the supperheater. One pound of steam pumps one pound of water. In implementation the steam cylander is smaller then the actual volume ratios so as to always pump excess water and a controled bypass around the pumps steam cylander for control.

Re: Williams ws. Rankin
February 08, 2006 02:03PM
What I am really waiting to hear is if you have connected your system to an engine dyno and run it at full power for a couple of hours minimum.
That will really tell the story and be well worth documenting in full, including video.
I certainly wish you the best of luck.

The SAE meet will simply exhaust your energy. When Besler demonstrated the Kaiser at that L.A. SAE meet, all of us were answering questions for days.
Most of them had no idea that anyone had made a new steam car, let alone that one even existed.
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