Bill,

Good Lord NO. The boiler we had was about 3 1/2' square and 24" deep, and that did not include the firebox or the stack. The Lamont could be a lot smaller.
No need at all to try to get 5,000 Lb/hr with any reciprocating engine. Remember we used a turbine and those are not so hot at all with the water rates they have, until you get to about 80% of the efficient speed, the 1/2V ratio. Below that they use steam like you had an inch hole in the steam line.

If a specially built engine, what configuration I don't know, except a three rotor Wankel, went into the transmission tunnel, then a Lamont sufficient to feed it could go into the ex engine space. Then you are faced with an awful condenser area need. So probably one in front and one under the entire hood area. At least for a road car, with a Bonneville car you stick with non condensing.
A 300 hp engine would need a steam generator giving about 3600 lbs/hr, so it is a big one and would need a draft booster to get the output up where you want it.

Just think of this too: A C-5 or C-6 Corvette has the transmission in unit with the differential, and the torque would probably turn it into crinkly. A C-4 Corvette has the transmission on the engine, so it is a much better selection.
At least the C-4 Corvettes have a hell for strong differential and there are dozens of ratios on the market, so it will stand up very well.

If you want to know what 700 hp can do in a Corvette, go to the Callaway web site for his turbocharged Vetts, he gets over 180 mph with no trouble at all.
Actually for Bonneville, a Corvette has too much frontal area, a special streamliner would be a lot better.

Jim

Hi Harry

My intention wasn’t to discredit your effort. You have done a lot of great work. But on the other hand, my opinion, is that your super-critical steam generator is not working as you think. If you look at the last chart showing density against enthalpy you see that the density change with enthalpy is not that much different between operatoring at 1000 PSIA and 3200 PSIA. Note the closeness in specific volume(1/density) of 1000 PSIA 950F steam to that of 3200 PSIA 1200F steam. At the phase change point the specific volume rate of change to enthalpy makes a quite noticeable increase. The points were generated using the IFC-67 formulations. The IFC-67 formulations should be very close to what’s happing in your generator sense you are using deionized pure water. The formulations should be within 0.03% for any given enthalpy and pressure. The only thing I am critical of is you use of the term “fluid”. As it’s scientific definition is different then it’s common usage. Scientific definition of fluid is not just a liquid. A fluid is basically anything that flows. A gas, liquid or mixture of gas and liquid and in some cases solid particles can be a fluid.

Everything I have heard from you is that you think it is a liquid through the entire heating process until it is released into the engine to expand. And that is what it sounds like you are claming on your web site. That is not the case. If you don’t believe me maybe you can get someone form the IAPWS group to check out my analysis. My concern is that control needs to be better then you think. Look at that last chart. You can clearly see the phase change around 812 BTU(705F chart 1) as you heat a liquid at 180F under 3200 PSIA to 1200F at 3200 PSIA. There is definitely a phase change. As I have said before. With the current definition of phase change one can extend the vapor pressure line beyond the critical point. I showed that in a previous post. Take a look at what I showed in those charts of my last post. You may just be lucky that it works. Remember Murphy’s law is an engineering axiom. If you don’t account for what can go wrong it will go wrong.

This site under Working Groups. [www.iapws.org] lists some recognized experts in steam. Try Allan Harvey. He has been very responsive and sent me early formulations and answered questions. There are several experts in the field listed there. An analysus of what you are doing by anyone of thoes listed would sure carry a lot of creditability.

There were several typos in that attachment. The virtical axis on all thoes charts were specific volume. Sorry should of taken a little more time to label the chart axis etc. Sorry if it sounded a bit negitive.

Andy




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2007 12:31PM by Andy.

Jim, I figured a Callaway could do better then 180 top end. They sure got off the line a lot quicker then my Stealth. And the Stealth got 190 something in the Road & Track test. The Stealth beat stock vets off the line. Didn't think there would be much differance in arodynamics.

Andy

Hi Andy
I don't know what you are refering to as to control. The heat transfer is giving us a 88.7% eff in the heat exchanger. There is no throttle valve only the valve in the head that changes cutoff. the high pressure incresses the power density. As I said in my synopsus "the higher the pressure the smaller the machine" We have run a test engines to 5000psi, it put out more power. Only the last two rows of tube are at super heat. I am sure that you don't understand the total system. I wish that you could have attended the last SACA meet and you could have seen the stuff and we could have talked. I brought a running engine the year before.
Harry

I am talking about temperature-pressure control of the inlet steam. You state that becaue of operatoring at SC pressure the control is simpler then say Doble or what ever. But what I see from the enthalpy/specific volume relations is that operating at 3200 PSIA and 1200F is very little different than operatoring at 1000 PSIA and 950F. The steam density is nearly the same. The heat transfer coieficient are close as well being very dependent on density. There is a phase change somewere in the steam generation. No doubt you get greater power density. It's the better control clame I question. you may indead have better control. But I think, if true, it must be becaue of something other then the SC operation.

At super-critical pressure you wouldn't have any significant section of tube containing a mixture of gas and liquid as at sub critical pressure. You could have a short length of mixture region. But there would be very little differance in heat transfer between the liquid and gas state. They are nearly the same density. Where at sub-critical pressure there is a big differance between gas and liquid density at the saturation line. In the mixture region you could have eratic heat transfer as sometimes you could have a liquid against the tube wall and other times a gas.

At SC pressure you do not have the two phase flow as at sub-critical pressure. Maybe I am being to picky. But you are implying on you site that at 3200 PSI 1200F H2O is a liquid when it is super heated steam.

Andy

Hi Andy
I don't have the time to explane it all on this forum. I will make it brief.
It has no throttle valve up stream of the engine causing a preasure drop. The expansion occours on the top of the piston not varing pressure in the boiler. temp and pressure are a constant. The super heated section as I referred to is in a fluid state and with that density the nuculite boiling is minamised. steam is an insulator. we are using small diameter tubing with thin wall and multi tube. there is high turbulance and even heat distribution through the tube bundle. this dose not occour in a Doble as the heat is driven down into pancake coils and would not have a totaly even heat distribution. There is a lot more to the total system, it has to be taken as a system. SC, heat regeneraton, high compression uniflow varible cam timing and duration, varible compression long power band, compact size, low heat losses, light weight, multifuel, efficent and in a single package.
The waste heat engine(WHE) is different to fit a different need. That is the fun of what we are doing, so many ways to skin a cat.
Harry

Hi Andy:

I'm not sure aerodynamics are the reason for the speed differential. A stock 2005 C6 Vette with the 400 hp LS2 engine topped out at 186 mph. The 2006 Z06 with 505 hp reaches a top end speed of 198 mph. Could just be the gear ratios on the Callaway are optimized a bit more in favor of acceleration versus ultimate top speed. Not, I am sure, that the factory Corvettes are built to achieve the ultimate top speed for the power available.

Bill: Not sure just how fast a Corvette could go on that power, as per reply to Andy above I doubt that the cars are optimized for ultimate speed, drivability would suffer. I don't see any problem as far as basic physics in getting the 198 mph Z06 mentioned above to do above 220 mph with 700 hp, if you optimized it for pure top end speed with a long acceleration run you could likely go faster yet. Given my drathers I'd probably look for an older NASCAR machine, instead. It is likely to be more acceptable to the people administering the LSR trials, and would certainly need far less modification.

I don't really see a problem with engine torque damaging the drive train in a Corvette or any similar machine when using a V-8 conversion. If you generated half the rpm of the stock engine, you are in the speed ranges reached by Jay Carter. He told me he needed 2500 psi to run at those speeds but we'd likely be going to a bit less aggressive cutoff so probably could split the pressure difference. It will certainly be easier to flow steam into a counterflow than a uniflow engine since we can skip recompression and keep a good delta P across the admission valve during the opening event. Since you have twice the power strokes the peak force on the rods are about the same as the IC configuration would deliver. A racing crank would easily absorb the extra torque from the pistons if you wanted to play it safe. I'd put a step up gear right on the end of the engine so the speed and torque going to the existing gear box is about the same as delivered by the IC engine. A NASCAR machine would likely be stong enough that you could skip the additional step up gear and just rebuild the gearbox and differential for the desired gear ratios.

I'll admit the water rate won't be as good as Jay Carter attained with his uniflow, you're going to get a hit from initial condensation with counterflow. On the other hand, if you use 427 cubic inches to generate 400 HP we are talking a fairly economic cutoff. Steam rates comparable to a White or Doble, in the neighborhood of 12 lbs/hp-hr seem reasonable.

I have to agree with Jim, a more economical reciprocating engine and a forced recirculation boiler should work together nicely to keep the size of the boiler way down and thus permit it to fit inside a reasonably sized vehicle.


Regards,

Ken

Hi Harry

What I have a problem with is the way you are using the term "fluid".

"The super heated section as I referred to is in a fluid state".

Fluid is not a state of mater. A Fluid is anything that flows. Liquid is a state of mater. Liquid is fluid. Gas is a state of mater. Gas is fluid. Plasma is a state of mater. Plasma is fluid. Solid is a state of mater. Solid is not usually fluid. Solid particals can be fluid. Sand for instance.

The scientific defination of fluid allows me to say the following:

Ok. So your steam generator is no different then any other boiler having fluid in the super-heater section. I agree. Every body has flud going through their entire system. Having fluid in you super-heater is nothing special. Super-heated steam is a fluid. A fluid is any thing that flows.

I am not critizing your results. It's you explanation.

Running super-critical pressure eliminates 2 phase flow. I will buy that eliminating two phase flow makes for tighter control of the output steam and over all better heat transfer.

What about density and nuculite boiling. Here some steam states that have the same density is you 3200 PSI,1200F steam.

You are at 3200 PSIA and 1200F with a specific volume of 0.282746 ft^3/lb
1500 PSIA and 600.60F has the exact same specific volume of 0.282746 ft^3/lb
1000 PSIA and 544.58F has the exact same specific volume of 0.282746 ft^3/lb
2000 PSIA and 753.93F has the exact same specific volume of 0.282746 ft^3/lb

I am ataching a pdf of of the state boints for thoes pressures. Only used 3214.696 PSIA (3200 PSIG) 1200F having a specific volume of 0.281335 ft^3/lb.

Thoes state points all have the same density 3.5544781 lb/ft^3. Density is not eliminating or minimizing nuculite boiling. At super-critical pressures you simply do not have a two phase region at any temperature. Not having a two phase region eliminates the nuculite boiling.

That still leaves the question of how you control the pressure and temperature.

What you are doing, engine control wise, is not all that different then my design. There is no throttle between my engine and steam generator. Power is controled by the inlet valve. It's a bit different then your valve control though.

Why do you keep explaining your engines power control by valves every time I ask about you pressure/temperature controle.

That is how a snake oil salesman anwsers a question. With an answer to an entiarly differnt question.

So how is pressure/temperature controled. I can not believe you have constant temp and pressure at the inlet valve. Simply not possavle even with control. It would have some variance around a control point.

Andy

Ken,

The Corvette is optomized for general customer street use. The factory C-6R race cars go the opposite way, speed and reliability on the track, and they sure have demonstrated that very well. Big factory development funding.
Callaway sets his cars up to what the customer wants, acceleration or high speed, although with the power he gets you can tear the tires off in any case.

The NASCAR vehicles are packing about 750 hp. and I doubt one would make a very good Bonneville car, only because if you tried to reach that level, where would you put the boiler? In a trailer? Just not enough room under the hood.

I would still advise one to go find some Bonneville streamliner and use that. Much better streamlining and less drag, so just as fast with less power. Converting a big Chevy engine to steam is not a hard job, new heads with the valve gear. For limited use like this, there is no reason one would not work as you say. Or even some smaller engine for that matter.

Jim

Ken
Why would you want to spend the time and money to modify a V8 cylinder block for steam? Two cylinder double acting high-pressure piston engines are out there and available. You will wind up with all kinds of blow by and most of the blocks around are short stroke engines.
If you do proceed go find an old block with the longest stroke you can find, at least you will be able to get some bottom rings on the pistons.

See attachment. Old Stanley block on top of a Bryan, next to a new piston valve Stanley

Ken.

The only comment I have is about flow through the valves. You mention that nocompression would have a better flow.

The thing is that there is a maximum flow rate. Basicly deturmined by the speed of sound in the flowing fluid. You have flow between pressures p1 and p2. You reach the maximum flow rate when p2 is around 1/2 p1. There is what is known as the critical pressure that is around 1/2 the higher pressure. When the lower pressure is below the critical pressure, flow is fixed to that of the critical pressure. Above the critical pressure flow is proportional to the pressure differance.

Andy

Andy,
Only you under stand your snake oil question. Also we don't use any oil snake or otherwise. I have told you before and I did not relise that you had forgotten. The temp is controled by a therocouple at the head in the flow at the highest heat. The pressure is controled by the pump with a pressure bypass. Very simple. Above 3205 that is called SC because it remains without boubles even above the saturation temp of 700f. A mono tube would have to be a larger diameter to carry the flow volume of the multitubes and would be larger because of lower pressure. It is eaiser to conduct through the smaller water volume as water is a semi conductor and steam is an insulator. larger tubes also take up a larger volume than the smaller tubes. Example IN the engine we intend to use for the LSR if we used 3/8 tube the surface area would be 90ft sq using 1/4 tube the surface area would be 156ft sq in the same space. conductivity is better as not to have to transfer heat farther through the water volume. There I hope I have answered your question. Next time come to the meet. There is so much more I don't have time, leaving for Chicago tomarrow.
Harry

Thinks Harry.

I hope you take a good look at what I said about SC operation, fluid and two phase flow or region.

I am very aware of the advantages and disadvantages of small tubes. I am sure you have read about it on my web site that has been up for close to 15 years now.

I don't remember you ever explaining the temperature control. I assume the therocouple somehow controls the fuel. It sounds like the White paradiagram. Pump controled by pressure, Fuel controled by temp.

Andy

Sorry forgot to attach document to last message.

Howdy, this is a do-able project, and you don't need much electricity, use a pulse jet for fire, as it draws its own air, and is simple and lightweight. a streamliner body really is a simple thing to build, the rules are published, and the record I consider a "soft" one..
john robinson record holder Bonneville Salt Flats H/GCC 144.396 MPH

Hi Guys,

Finally back to Minneapolis from the remodeling job in Idaho. (Jim, the job in California wasn't to be.)

I agree that breaking the present speed record shouldn't be too hard. It does look like Harry and Chuck will be the next to have a go at the record though and will likely set it to a speed that will be more of a challenge. Thus I think that a speed of 200 MPH would be a good target to shoot for as a goal after their run.

I, of course, believe my engine could do it, but it's a long way from here to there. I am getting my garage space together and hope to get as far as some experiments with flat plate heat exchangers for condensing - this winter. We'll see. Life is what happens while we are making other plans.

That experiment would entail then, also making a boiler to produce the steam for the experiment. Again, we'll see.

The use of a pulse jet for a burner sounds interesting. Any more data on it?

Best regards to everyone, ------- Bill G.

Bill,
Oc course. We worked on it probably 35 years ago and Jim Tangeman made one with an internal coil down the tube. It worked; but the noise is something else. Using two in push pull can cancel the racket.
The stated heat release in a large one is supposed to be 8,500,000 BTU per cubic foot. Pressurized combustion due to the shock wave. Hard to throttle and sometimes hard to start and the reed intake valves shatter rather soon.

Go to "pulse jet.com" and there are almost hundreds of papers on it. It got a lot of investigation and research after WW-II, Project SQUID.

There is a splendid book on the subject. "Pulsating Combustion, The Collected Works of F. H. Reynst" Pergamon Press, 1961. Tells you everything you want to know about them, and even more.

Jim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2007 08:34AM by James D. Crank.

Hi Bill,

"and hope to get as far as some experiments with flat plate heat exchangers for condensing "

Is condensing even necessary for this run, It cant be more than ten miles.

"The stated heat release in a large one is supposed to be 8,500,000 BTU per cubic foot."

Ya, this is what im talken about...

On average steam cars are considerd more heavy than there IC counterparts, are they not?

Just my opinion, but steam's gonna have to push 300mph to be taken seriously in this day and age.

Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,

No, a condenser shouldn't be necessary for a speed run, but I am a long way from that yet. A running steam car would be a first goal and could yeild a lot of information for an LSR car, or motorcycle. On the average I believe that a steam system will always be heavier than an IC counterpart, even though the basic engine should be lighter. Boilers and condensers are heavy.

As with the development of racing IC engines, there should also be a lot of gains for general passenger car use. Here, for instance, we are just talking of a much more compact burner (pulse jet) for use in a racing boiler. A smaller and lighter boiler. The same would be welcome for non racing uses to lighten and compact a car.

A much smaller and lighter condenser would be needed for both a passenger car and a track car if steam ever makes it to that level of development and interest.

Jim, thanks for the info, I will see if I can get a copy of the book. For comparative purposes, what is the heat release of a common boilers burner/ ft^3 ?

Not having studied boilers too very much yet, a question comes to mind. It seems that the highest heat transfer efficiency is from radiative heating and that convective heating is needed to gain efficiency. Therefore isn't a large and luminous flame front necessary for higher heat transfer efficiency? Looking at several boiler designs, it appears that mostly, only the inner coils are exposed to radiative heating. I am sure there are good books on this too, (waiting to be read by me.)

Thank You, ------ Bill G.

Hi Bill:

Forget all that new fangled 'radiant','conductive' and 'convective' terminology. It is and always has been all about phlogiston. Once you establish a steady, reliable and strong phlogiston flow you have it knocked.

Ken

Ahh, at last.

Someone who understands the inner workings of the Hieronymus machine.

Bill G.

Bill
In general 90% of the work takes place in the combustion chamber. Radiant Heat.

Say your running 600 PSI or 486 degrees saturated temperature. The largest differential temperature between the fire 2400F and the water 486F is in the combustion chamber.
Out side the combustion chamber your using the hot gasses either in turbulent flow or laminate flow. Turbulent flow will transfer more heat through a pipe then laminate flow.
Two layers of pipe from the combustion chamber and your down to 1000F till you get to the exhaust. In most cases exhaust heat varies around 500F. With a feed water economizer you can bring it down to 375F to 450F.

Hi Bill,

"Not having studied boilers too very much yet, a question comes to mind. It seems that the highest heat transfer efficiency is from radiative heating and that convective heating is needed to gain efficiency. Therefore isn't a large and luminous flame front necessary for higher heat transfer efficiency? Looking at several boiler designs, it appears that mostly, only the inner coils are exposed to radiative heating. I am sure there are good books on this too, (waiting to be read by me.)"

Tell me about it.

Water-walls absorb un-told amounts of heat transfer.

My confliction is, with Harry's design. If so-much shaft horse-power is being diverted to condencing. Then, how can that power, be laid to the ground. Its by understanding that the condencer fan, is tied directly to the crankshaft, like a blower is in an IC counterpart, that makes me scrath my chin. Atleast for an all out LSR type of mission.

Look,

I have closed the numbers significantly(ft3) using LaMont style re-circulation, quite frankly, I just dont see any of that, with Harrys design. Just questioning the Lear dynamic here.

But more importantly, how is Harry's design the answer to turbines of whatever flavor(reaction/vs/impulse). Pistons engines by nature, could care less, about condencers. They do not need the exhaust gradent, when compared to PSIA.

Chewing nails somewhat.


Jeremy

Thanks Rolly,

I had no idea that the radiative factor was so high.

I am wondering then about the difference in visual luminosity of various fuels as they burn. It seems that the higher the carbon content the greater the visual luminosity. This should show up in say alcohol vs fuel oil burning with the same BTU output. As I understand it the radiative factor is related to the fourth power of the black body temperature of the radiator. Now a black body (chunk of steel) at 1,150 degrees F is, I think hardly a dull red yet, and at 2,700 degrees F is getting yellowish. A burning high carbon fuel is emmiting from orange to white light.

Post combustion products at about 2,200 degrees have an emissivity of around just 0.05 to 0.07 (if my research is right) but is mostly transparent to IR radiation. This means that the amount of heat radiated from combustion is proportional to the volume of combustion products and not the surface area for a given temperature. A flat plate at the same temperature would radiate in proportion to it's surface area and not it's volume for instance.

I found a statement on the net that said that the emissivity is much higher (how much?) for an incomplete combustion where there is unburned carbon (smoke?) still in the burning mix. This would indicate that a fuel rich burn would radiate more heat to the tubing than a lean mix.

Perhaps this might result in a rich burning first combustion and then a following lean burn to optimize radiative heating.

Lots to investigate.

Hi Jeremy, you posted while I was writing. A water wall (tubing) would absorb a lot of radiative heat. But a water wall has two sides and some way to radiate both sides of it needs to be fashioned to keep weight and volume down further.

Harrys engine, as I understand it, uses the same fan to blow air through the condenser and then to the burner. I doubt that it's power requirements are all that much. Also the Cyclone is exhausting at a higher temperature than boiling and the fan is returning some of that heat to the burner.

The use of super critical pressures in the Cyclone negates the need for Lamont type recirculation. This is because the water in the tubing doesn't form insulating steam bubbles that would rob heat transfer efficiency. The circulation in the Lamont scrubs those bubbles away from the tube walls to keep the heat transfer high.

A piston HCU engine can too benefit from lower than atmospheric exhaust pressures. Even if it's final expansion pressure before exhaust is higher than atmospheric it uses the pressure difference between end of expansion and exhaust to move the steam out of the cylinder. The lower the pressure in the cylinder before recompression, the smaller the clearance volume has to be and the less energy it takes to recompress. Volumetric efficiency of the engine goes up as exhaust pressure goes down and clearance volume also goes down. Providing that recompression is to inlet pressures though. If end of expansion pressure and exhaust pressure were the same nothing would come out of the engine, as for one extreame and if a vacuum resulted in the cylinder due to too low a condenser pressure and a low RPM there would be nothing to recompress for the other extreme.

Best ------- Bill G.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2007 01:40AM by Bill Gatlin.

Bill,
Ordinary boilers are around 750K to 1 MBTU/cu/ft from what I have read. The Dobles with draft boosters can get around 1.5 MBTU at full tilt.
The higher the draft pressure the larger the heat release in the firebox.

Rolly is right. The greatest heat transfer rate is where the temperature difference is the greatest, in the firebox. The rest just brings the water up to the boiling point at that pressure. Supercritical is a whole other world, to say the least.
This is the main reason for the Lamont, the tubes contain only water, not steam, so the heat transfer rate is the best. Also the danger of tube burnout with high firing rates is removed, and control systems are orders of magnitude simpler than the Doble style.
Turbulent gas flow in the rest of the steam generator can be enhanced by using finned tubing, makes the whole thing lighter and smaller too. Also using two or three tubes in parallel helps a lot. All this combined makes for a nice package.

No car at Bonneville needs a condenser, you only run for about 10 minutes including the stageing, so a brute force system is all you want.

Jeremy, Turbines want a high vacuum or the water rates are horrible. Same goes for the unaflow engine, it wants a good vacuum, or the re-compression will need to be controlled with additional hardware. Their exhaust time is obviously much less than a counterflow.

Jim

No car at Bonneville needs a condenser, you only run for about 10 minutes including the stageing, so a brute force system is all you want.

Jim How long in time is the actual run? Do you think a truck-mounted boiler could be used to warm up the cars power plant just prior to the run? This would minimize the water and fuel needed to be carried.
Rolly

Hi Bill

Right. Radiative heating can be the highest heating in a boiler. That is the resioning behind the S.E.S. circuit layout. Puting the evaporator section in the radiant heating area. The LaMont done by George does the same. My outside donut shaped combustion idea was to have the highest surface area exposed to radiant heat. Harry's design is simular to mine as well. There is a crude drawing of it on my web site:
[www.greenhills.net]

That is an old initial concept drawing. The LaMont boiler has a very high output for for a given space. George has a great write up on it attributes and expected performance:
[www.steamautomobile.com]

I am not neccessarly sold on the recirculation in the LaMont. The Stand pipe level control was also used in a different way in a small boiler made for the dry cleaning industry. That boiler also had good control and was a once through (monotube) steam generator. But check out George's LaMont paper for boiler output. I compares performance of Stanley, White, Doble and LaMont boilers.

Andy

Hi Rolly

S.E.S. spaced generation and superheater coils realative far apart to allow radiant heat to penertrate further into the coil stack. That could allow higher gas temperature deeper into the coil stack. Though gas temperature drop quickly once outside the flame.

Andy

"I am wondering then about the difference in visual luminosity of various fuels as they burn. It seems that the higher the carbon content the greater the visual luminosity. This should show up in say alcohol vs fuel oil burning with the same BTU output. As I understand it the radiative factor is related to the fourth power of the black body temperature of the radiator. Now a black body (chunk of steel) at 1,150 degrees F is, I think hardly a dull red yet, and at 2,700 degrees F is getting yellowish. A burning high carbon fuel is emmiting from orange to white light."

"Now a black body (chunk of steel) at 1,150 degrees F is, I think hardly a dull red yet, and at 2,700 degrees F is getting yellowish."

Heres how I figure things, with regard to visual luminosity.

Bill, I think your definitly on to something with regard to blackbody radiation. Take a black light, the surface temperature of the glass on the bulb is much hotter when compared to a soft white bulb of the same type. Such as an IR heater would emit but without the direct IR radiation. I think this is relative to glass panes having a green hue at there thickest dimensions. Simular to green light transfering longer distances in water because its more efficient that way.

A deep dark(heavy) blue-flame[that can be clearly seen in daylight] will transfer lots and lots of direct blackbody radiation, to a nickel-steel alloy such as stainless steel. I have determined that if the blue flame turns green or white, it has been contaminated with metal ions, such as copper and the stainless coating I have on my copper heat exchangers. This is generally a warning that I have overheated my heat exchanger... I always back off the fuel or air-inlet volumes to my external combustion chamber, when I see this. Im not a big fan of very thin fins on my heatexchanger tubing. And I like to hear turbulence in the burner, even if the flame is very sharp.

I do however see a large radiative heating componet to Harry's design. I think this is good.

Jeremy

"A deep dark(heavy) blue-flame[that can be clearly seen in daylight] will transfer lots and lots of direct blackbody radiation, to a nickel-steel alloy such as stainless steel."

Bill,

When I generate this blue-flame, it is a solid column, 6inch diameter by 18inchs high, it does swirl(at about 35*). My best measurement is 105,000 btu-hr. Thats alot of blue flame.

I am burning an organic fuel solid corn kernals, but I have heard from several people, a good running fuel oil burner, will make the same type of flame.

Jeremy

All files from this thread

File Name	File Size		Posted by	Date
Bryan Engine photos.jpg	84.6 KB	open | download	Rolly	10/18/2007	Read message
1924 Stanley.JPG	59 KB	open | download	Rolly	10/22/2007	Read message
P1010001.JPG	59.9 KB	open | download	Rolly	10/24/2007	Read message
harryspts.pdf	18.8 KB	open | download	Andy	10/24/2007	Read message
Thorney runway.JPG	87.3 KB	open | download	Greg Walker	12/05/2008	Read message