spitfire
  • spitfire
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Newbie Topic Starter
13 years ago
To Thrutch
What are the number of strokes your engine is making per minute?
spitfire
Morlock
13 years ago
http://www.middleton-leawood.org.uk/ 

"This equates to a speed of over 7ยฝ strokes per minute, which is twice as fast as the engine is operated today!"
spitfire
  • spitfire
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Newbie Topic Starter
13 years ago
Thanks for that Morlock, the reason I asked was looking at the video it appeared to be working much faster. I should have read the written information as well :oops:
spitfire
Morlock
13 years ago
I've never given any thought to how a loco type boiler would be connected to the chimney in a pumphouse application so read all the info just in case there were a few engineering drawings.

Sure Thrutch will update us on technical details.
Thrutch
13 years ago
The Leawood engine is usually run at around 4 strokes/minute. We have run it faster and always believed until recently that it's maximum speed was around 7 strokes/minute. However, documentation has turned up which gives figures for volume of water pumped - these indicate that the engine was run at a higher speed.

With regard to connecting the locomotive type boilers to the chimney - the boilers have locomotive smoke boxes, complete with holes for the chimneys, blanked off as the gases pass down through the bottom of the smokeboxes and along flues under the yard to the chimney. The smokeboxes are have those lovely, slightly domed, flush fitting doors seen on locomotives of that 1900 period. The boilers are from a batch of ten ordered for stationary engine use.

spitfire
  • spitfire
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Newbie Topic Starter
13 years ago
What a shame we do not take such a pride in buildings and machinery like this any more

๐Ÿ”—Personal-Album-1228-Image-76356[linkphoto]Personal-Album-1228-Image-76356[/linkphoto][/link]
spitfire
Boy Engineer
13 years ago
Er, some of us do. I'm lucky enough to be supplying components to a world leader in aero gas turbines. They take pride in their work and we take pride in manufacturing components for them. For sure they aren't covered in mahogany strips to hold asbestos lagging in place (technology moves on) but let's cut the "no one takes any pride" cr*p.
Sermon over.
spitfire
  • spitfire
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Newbie Topic Starter
13 years ago
Point Taken :surrender:
spitfire
Trewillan
13 years ago
"Boy Engineer" wrote:

Er, some of us do. I'm lucky enough to be supplying components to a world leader in aero gas turbines. They take pride in their work and we take pride in manufacturing components for them. For sure they aren't covered in mahogany strips to hold asbestos lagging in place (technology moves on) but let's cut the "no one takes any pride" cr*p.
Sermon over.



Something to do with the consequences of failure in the aero industry?

Still easy to find other stuff created with a definite lack of pride.
spitfire
  • spitfire
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Newbie Topic Starter
13 years ago
To Thrutch. Looking at your running cost, for the size of engine you have they seem about right.
Have you considered the following: raise steam to full working pressure using only wood. When full pressure is reached and a thick fire bed established, then and only then start to add the expensive coal. Do not be tempted to mix the two as this will result in a messy fire.
I know this is not feasible for loco's or road engines as the action of the blast pipe jerks the fire around, but it should be OK on a stationary boiler. Another alternative, if there is a plentiful supply is to fire entirely on wood it'll keep you busy but far cheaper.
I have always considered raising steam by coal (especially these days) as a complete waste of money
Try it a couple of times, I would be pleased ๐Ÿ™‚ or disappointed ๐Ÿ˜ž to hear the results.
spitfire
exspelio
13 years ago
Or coppiced charcoal?, (less tar)
Always remember, nature is in charge, get it wrong and it is you who suffers!.
Morlock
13 years ago
A selection of fuels with calorific values. ๐Ÿ™‚

http://www.indiasolar.com/cal-value.htm 
Trewillan
13 years ago
Note the use of Kcal per Kg in the table.

Is this unique to India? I've always seen CV's in KJ/Kg.
exspelio
13 years ago
There you go, twice the energy from charcoal (lets ignore the energy it takes to produce it, the gaseous crap is not going into the engine system).
Always remember, nature is in charge, get it wrong and it is you who suffers!.
spitfire
  • spitfire
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Newbie Topic Starter
13 years ago
"exspelio" wrote:

Or coppiced charcoal?, (less tar)



But more expensive than coal.
spitfire
exspelio
13 years ago
"spitfire" wrote:

"exspelio" wrote:

Or coppiced charcoal?, (less tar)



But more expensive than coal.



I thought you said wood to start up, that was what I was responding to.
Always remember, nature is in charge, get it wrong and it is you who suffers!.
spitfire
  • spitfire
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Newbie Topic Starter
13 years ago
I did but not charcoal
spitfire
exspelio
13 years ago
"spitfire" wrote:

I did but not charcoal


No, I said charcoal, Less gunging up.
Always remember, nature is in charge, get it wrong and it is you who suffers!.
spitfire
  • spitfire
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Newbie Topic Starter
13 years ago
Although it is a lot hotter (some say too hot) it would not be suitable for a boiler of that size, and to get the same amount of work done it would work out dearer than coal
spitfire
exspelio
13 years ago
We are talking about startup, after that run on coal, by the way, I'm on rum, what are you on?
Always remember, nature is in charge, get it wrong and it is you who suffers!.

Disclaimer: Mine exploring can be quite dangerous, but then again it can be alright, it all depends on the weather. Please read the proper disclaimer.
© 2005 to 2023 AditNow.co.uk

Dedicated to the memory of Freda Lowe, who believed this was worth saving...