Steam Engine Reviews - Revision history

Mjn at 22:54, 1 October 2011

2011-10-01T22:54:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:54, 1 October 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Piston Head Stress]]		* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Piston Head Stress]]
	* [[Steam Engine Design/Gregor]]		* [[Steam Engine Design/Gregor]]
			* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Mike Stone]]

	Additional information, comments, and suggestions can be found in:		Additional information, comments, and suggestions can be found in:

Bastelmike at 15:51, 30 August 2011

2011-08-30T15:51:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 30 August 2011
Line 5:		Line 5:
	* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Arrowhead Bump Valve Summary]]		* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Arrowhead Bump Valve Summary]]
	* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Arrowhead Bump Valve]]		* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Arrowhead Bump Valve]]
			* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Piston Head Stress]]
	* [[Steam Engine Design/Gregor]]		* [[Steam Engine Design/Gregor]]

Mjn at 18:44, 20 July 2011

2011-07-20T18:44:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 20 July 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The following reviews, comments, and suggestions have been made:		The following reviews, comments, and suggestions have been made:

			* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Arrowhead Bump Valve Summary]]
	* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Arrowhead Bump Valve]]		* [[Steam Engine Reviews/Arrowhead Bump Valve]]
	* [[Steam Engine Design/Gregor]]		* [[Steam Engine Design/Gregor]]

Mjn at 17:43, 20 July 2011

2011-07-20T17:43:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 20 July 2011
Line 6:		Line 6:
	* [[Steam Engine Design/Gregor]]		* [[Steam Engine Design/Gregor]]

			Additional information, comments, and suggestions can be found in:

			* [[Steam Engine Correspondence]]

	[[Category:Steam Engine]]		[[Category:Steam Engine]]
	[[Category:Solar Turbine]]		[[Category:Solar Turbine]]

Mjn: Replaced content with "{{Category=Steam Engine}} The following reviews, comments, and suggestions have been made: * Steam Engine Reviews/Arrowhead Bump Valve * Steam Engine Design/Gregor ..."

2011-07-20T17:42:20Z

Replaced content with "{{Category=Steam Engine}} The following reviews, comments, and suggestions have been made: * Steam Engine Reviews/Arrowhead Bump Valve * Steam Engine Design/Gregor ..."

Show changes

Mjn at 17:01, 20 July 2011

2011-07-20T17:01:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 20 July 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Category=Steam Engine}}		{{Category=Steam Engine}}

			The following reviews apply to the Bump Valve Design.

			=Tom Kimmel of SACA=

			Some observations and recommendations from Tom:

			# Do more research.
			# Come to my shop and look at real steam engines.
			# Add teeth to the flywheel to allow an electric starter motor.
			# Cylinder liners (sleeve) should be cast iron. Look into motor rebuild kits.
			# Valves are not "chinese hat". Talk to Jay Carr about his design.
			# Open or closed crank is a choice. Not critical.
			# Lubrication is important, but had no specific recommendations.
			# Start with conservative materials (like iron) and consider advanced materials later (like nitride coatings).
			# Consider designing an exhaust manifold from the start.
			# Visit Bill Ryan north of Chicago who has experience with making bash valves.
			# Don't use stainless steel as a cylinder line.
			# Consider 12v electric system for fans, solenoids, relays, water level sensors, and starter motor.

			=Ken Helmick of SACA=

			Some observations and recommendations from Ken:

			# Initial decisions having huge influence on final design.
			# Higher operating pressures and temperatures lead to potentially higher efficiency.
			# A uniflow engine has the potential of higher efficiency.
			# A counterflow engine has the relative advantage of being more easily operated.
			# Wrapping a sleeve and welding is not likely to yield a satisfactory engine
			# To make a sleeve, consider:
			## Cast it using a sand mold.
			## Use off-the-shelf sleeves.
			## Purchase already honed hydraulic cylinder tubes.
			## Convert an existing IC engine or extensively utilize IC engine components.
			# If welding is employed, stress-relieve the assembly and then re-hone lightly in case of any slight thermal induced distortion to the bore.
			# Valve springs must be wound from superalloys and heat treated. Conventional springs will fail from the heat of the steam.
			# Bump valve engines probably are more efficient at some moderate rpm.
			# An alternative to bump valves is a smaller piston valve mounted coaxially with, and upon, the engine piston.
			# Always enclose the crankcase of any higher rpm engine.
			# There is an incredible variety of piston rings available in almost any size, configuration and material imaginable and this is about the last reason I would select a given engine diameter.
			# Electric starter motors are simple. Older General Motors alternators are widely available and they have an integral voltage regulator.
			# A uniflow exhaust manifold could be very, very simple, depending on the cylinder.
			# The crankshaft is the heart of the engine.
			# The average home machinist is typically not equipped for (nor capable of) building a multiple throw, one piece crankshaft.
			# One route to consider is the built-up crank.
			# If a one piece crank is desired, the best route to go would be to either cast a rough out of a high grade of iron.
			# The home machinist can balance a crank with a single throw but multiple pin cranks can only be balanced in a shop with a dynamic balancing machine.

	=Jonathan Herz - =		=Jonathan Herz - =

Dawg: /* Damien Gendorn */

2011-07-04T17:39:20Z

Damien Gendorn

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:39, 4 July 2011
Line 28:		Line 28:


	= Damien ~~Gendorn~~ =		= Damien Gendron =

	My vision is to just be a part of the project. I'm sure I can be useful to you. However, I also know very little about steam driven engines. Ideally, someone more experienced in this arena would be guiding us. The likelihood of us coming up with something great in a short period of time is slim to non....:) You must know this already....no? But, we will learn about each other and develop a process that will be useful in the future I'm sure. So here comes some ramblings.		My vision is to just be a part of the project. I'm sure I can be useful to you. However, I also know very little about steam driven engines. Ideally, someone more experienced in this arena would be guiding us. The likelihood of us coming up with something great in a short period of time is slim to non....:) You must know this already....no? But, we will learn about each other and develop a process that will be useful in the future I'm sure. So here comes some ramblings.

Mjn: Review by DAWG

2011-07-04T00:12:06Z

Review by DAWG

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Category=Steam Engine}}
-From blog:
+=Jonathan Herz - =
 Jonathan short | fatfuck@sover.net | IP: 216.114.136.157
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 Jonathan Herz
-May 1, 7:45 PM — [ Edit | Delete | Unapprove | Approve | Spam ] — Steam Age meets the Digital Age: Open Source Steam Engine
+May 1, 2011 7:45 PM — [ Edit | Delete | Unapprove | Approve | Spam ] — Steam Age meets the Digital Age: Open Source Steam Engine
 [[Category:Steam Engine]]
 [[Category:Solar Turbine]]

Mjn at 22:18, 1 May 2011

2011-05-01T22:18:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 1 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Category=Steam Engine}}

	From blog:		From blog:

Mjn: Minor edits for readability.

2011-04-20T00:58:25Z

Minor edits for readability.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:58, 20 April 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	From blog:		From blog:

	#

	Jonathan short \| fatfuck@sover.net \| IP: 216.114.136.157		Jonathan short \| fatfuck@sover.net \| IP: 216.114.136.157

	I read what you wrote about your engine ideas with interest. I agree with you that the possibility for integrating electronic valve timing with a traditional steam engine. When I looked into the most obvious solution, solenoid valves such as you suggested, I found that the requirements for the solenoid are not trivial. If you pursue this, you will want to look closely at the performance of the solenoid, both in terms of duty cycle and actuation time. The results suggest that you need a very powerful, very fast solenoid with nearly 100% duty cycle. This is not inexpensive. I tried reducing the weight of the valve to improve response time by actuating a very light pilot valve, but the problem is that the iron in the solenoid plunger has a lot of mass. You can increase the power of the solenoid by increasing the magnetic field, but greater the magnetic field, the longer you need to apply a given current to generate the field, thus the slower the response time.		I read what you wrote about your engine ideas with interest. I agree with you that the possibility for integrating electronic valve timing with a traditional steam engine. When I looked into the most obvious solution, solenoid valves such as you suggested, I found that the requirements for the solenoid are not trivial. If you pursue this, you will want to look closely at the performance of the solenoid, both in terms of duty cycle and actuation time. The results suggest that you need a very powerful, very fast solenoid with nearly 100% duty cycle. This is not inexpensive. I tried reducing the weight of the valve to improve response time by actuating a very light pilot valve, but the problem is that the iron in the solenoid plunger has a lot of mass. You can increase the power of the solenoid by increasing the magnetic field, but greater the magnetic field, the longer you need to apply a given current to generate the field, thus the slower the response time.

	The problem is not insoluble. I know that the automotive industry is looking at solenoid valving, which is an even more demanding application. But they are looking at a highly engineered solution.		The problem is not insoluble. I know that the automotive industry is looking at solenoid valving, which is an even more demanding application. But they are looking at a highly engineered solution.
	I do seem to spend a lot of time dishing out bad news in alternative energy circles, but I also wanted to let you know that if you wish to pursue your steam engine (and I hope you do), you will need greatly reduce your efficiency expectation below the 19% you quoted. I think you are about four times too optimistic. The sort of engine that you sketched can be expected to produce about 5% efficiency assuming a reasonably efficient boiler. You quoted the Skinner unaflow engine at 19% peak efficiency. Taking that as a benchmark, here are the ways in which an engine such as yours falls short. Ignoring boiler efficiency as outside the scope of this discussion:		I do seem to spend a lot of time dishing out bad news in alternative energy circles, but I also wanted to let you know that if you wish to pursue your steam engine (and I hope you do), you will need greatly reduce your efficiency expectation below the 19% you quoted. I think you are about four times too optimistic. The sort of engine that you sketched can be expected to produce about 5% efficiency assuming a reasonably efficient boiler. You quoted the Skinner unaflow engine at 19% peak efficiency. Taking that as a benchmark, here are the ways in which an engine such as yours falls short. Ignoring boiler efficiency as outside the scope of this discussion:
	1)The Skinner used pressures around 800 psi, much higher than the 100-200 that is common for most smaller setups.
	2)It operated at several hundred degrees of superheat, which would be difficult to achieve without expensive controls and high alloy superheater tubes.		# The Skinner used pressures around 800 psi, much higher than the 100-200 that is common for most smaller setups.
	3)It was Unaflow and condensing. Unaflow is a great way to go, but if you are not operating condensing at a low condenser pressure, unaflow operation requires complex auxiliary exhaust valve which opens only after the unaflow ports are opened. In any case, a non-condensing engine will be less efficient than a condensing engine. One advantage that marine engines had is that they were sitting in a body of water and could thus easily cool their condensers and keep them very low pressure. If you don’t use unaflow valving then compounding becomes VERY important for efficiency.		# It operated at several hundred degrees of superheat, which would be difficult to achieve without expensive controls and high alloy superheater tubes.
	4) your engine is smaller and therefore you will have less mechanical and thermal efficiency.		# It was Unaflow and condensing. Unaflow is a great way to go, but if you are not operating condensing at a low condenser pressure, unaflow operation requires complex auxiliary exhaust valve which opens only after the unaflow ports are opened. In any case, a non-condensing engine will be less efficient than a condensing engine. One advantage that marine engines had is that they were sitting in a body of water and could thus easily cool their condensers and keep them very low pressure. If you don’t use unaflow valving then compounding becomes VERY important for efficiency.
	5) You do not jacket the cylinder and head with high pressure steam. Again, more condensation losses.		# your engine is smaller and therefore you will have less mechanical and thermal efficiency.
	6) Unless you have a very constant load, you cannot obtain good efficiencies without variable cutoff (varying the expansion ratio to accommodate different loads). One of the advantages of electronic valving is that you can more easily implement variable cutoff, but your electronics would be more complex and you would need some form of sensing for the electronics to determine the right cutoff.		# You do not jacket the cylinder and head with high pressure steam. Again, more condensation losses.
			# Unless you have a very constant load, you cannot obtain good efficiencies without variable cutoff (varying the expansion ratio to accommodate different loads). One of the advantages of electronic valving is that you can more easily implement variable cutoff, but your electronics would be more complex and you would need some form of sensing for the electronics to determine the right cutoff.

	Those are the major efficiency factors that you would want to consider if you want to achieve better than 5% efficiency. As you can see, there is, as always, a tradeoff between efficiency and manufacturability.		Those are the major efficiency factors that you would want to consider if you want to achieve better than 5% efficiency. As you can see, there is, as always, a tradeoff between efficiency and manufacturability.