# Triple expansion to I6?



## jazz256 (Apr 19, 2016)

Hello everyone, My name is James Jones and I am trying to build a steam car. For the past year, I have been researching and reading about steam engines, boilers and other systems. In my quest to build my car, I have read about the Doble, White, Stanley, Baker and various other steam cars (and locomotives.) One thing that intrigued me was that the Doble had a four cylinder steam engine, which were two compound steam engines on a common crankshaft. I also read that triple expansion steam engines were efficient engines for their configuration. My question is, is it possible to mate two triple expansion steam engines together on a common crank? I seen the possibilities of the engine being naturally balanced and the engine being efficient, especially if I use a 15%-25% cutoff on both the high pressure cylinders.


----------



## RonGinger (Apr 19, 2016)

I think triple expansion is only useful when you can work into a condenser to create a vacuum.  They were used on boats where the water made a  great cooler. I do not believe anyone every made a triple loco and even compound locos were rare. Your idea of two engines sounds like it might be better to make one engine of larger bore to gain more power. Making two engines, besides being a lot more work, would have more friction and losses to surface area.


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 19, 2016)

The single compound or triple expansion steam engine can not self start who is neccesary in the car and make more smoother running with double compound or triple expansion steam engine. In Doble car is the double compound steam engine used. The Stanley steam car had not compound or triple steam expansion steam engine, only 2 cylinder double acting steam engine. The steam car has radiator as condenser to create vacuum in low pressure cylinder and the condensed water is returned to boiler for long duration with less lost of water. In marine compound or triple expansion steam engine is starting with the simpling valve who is sending the steam pressure to middle pressure- or low pressure cylinder to start up steam engine. Cylinder volume in Stanley car was not large, 4" bore and 5" stroke is powerful enough!


----------



## Charles Lamont (Apr 19, 2016)

One of factors affecting efficiency is the size of the cylinders. Small cylinders
have more surface area in relation to their volume than large ones. This has two consequences, the relatively larger external surface are will lose more heat, and the internal surface, heated by the incoming steam, will then give up more heat to the outgoing exhaust, so thermodynamically your 6-cyl is likely to be less efficient than a triple of the same overal volume.

Mechanical losses would also be almost twice as great. Balance of a 3-cylinder
engine can be pretty good, although there is a 'rocking couple'.

I have never heard of a triple expansion road vehicle, let alone a successful one (though I am not saying there was no such thing).
Compounds tended to be used for road traction engines (road locomotives) mainly because they used slide or piston valves with the limitations of their valve gear, and superheaters were regarded as an over-complication. One of the most successful more modern designs of road steamer were the Sentinel waggons, which had simple expansion engines with poppet valves and sliding camshafts for reversing and cut-off variation and using superheated steam. In particular, the last model, the S-type, had a 4-cylinder single-acting engine, and in 1934 this was a steam lorry comfortably capable of 40 mph (and, reputedly, getting on for 60).


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 19, 2016)

So, its safe to say don't try to mate two triple expansion engines together and put it into a car?


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 19, 2016)

Charles Lamont said:


> One of factors affecting efficiency is the size of the cylinders. Small cylinders
> have more surface area in relation to their volume than large ones. This has two consequences, the relatively larger external surface are will lose more heat, and the internal surface, heated by the incoming steam, will then give up more heat to the outgoing exhaust, so thermodynamically your 6-cyl is likely to be less efficient than a triple of the same overal volume.
> 
> Mechanical losses would also be almost twice as great. Balance of a 3-cylinder
> ...


 
That was one of my concerns about a regular triple expansion engine, the rocking couple at higher rpm. I would hate to build this engine, use it, then find out the engine shook its self apart. The only way to offset that would be to use counterbalancing shafts; which would add more complexity and cost to the engine. 

As far as cylinder size, I wanted my higher pressure cylinder bore to be 1 1/8; middle cylinder 2 1/4, and low pressure 4 1/2. I have no problem with using a simpling valve to start the engine. I just like to be different and try something new. My first car was Volvo s80 t6; twin turbo inline 6. My dad had a 2008 jaguar xj with a v8. Comparing the two, by far, that Volvo and its engine was outstanding in its performance and I was instantly hooked. 

In my studies about the Doble car and its engine, I was amazed but perplexed. The four cylinder concept was outstanding, but then, I thought to myself, why not use three cylinders for greater efficiency? Why not make a small inline 6 and stuff it in the car? It seems that it would be powerful using modern materials and design...


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 20, 2016)

Charles Lamont said:


> . This has two consequences, the relatively larger external surface are will lose more heat, and the internal surface, heated by the incoming steam, will then give up more heat to the outgoing exhaust, so thermodynamically your 6-cyl is likely to be less efficient than a triple of the same overal volume.



Jazz256..
You need a powerful boiler who is too large for a car.. 

The Doble steam car had a single tube "flash" type 575.74 feet,
Coils of 22 inch diameter stacked 13 inches tall.
Operating pressure 750 lb/in^2
Operating temperature 750 deg. F.
Cold start 30 seconds. And four cylinder, double acting, balanced compound. Two high pressure and two low pressure pistons. Displacement 381.16 cuin. Bore X Stroke High pressure 2.875 x 5.00 low pressure 4.000 x 5.00.

No triple expansion steam engine in steam car.


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 20, 2016)

In that case, would a 2 inch bore, 4.5 inch stroke, single acting, inline 6 steam engine work? I will have the benefit of high rpm, balance, and cut off for steam expansion the cylinder. I've been up all night thinking about this single acting I6. As far as steam generator space is concerned, I designed the car to be fair massive. The wheelbase by its self is 132.75 inches and that is on the small side of things.


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 20, 2016)

jazz256 said:


> In that case, would a 2 inch bore, 4.5 inch stroke, single acting, inline 6 steam engine work? I will have the benefit of high rpm, balance, and cut off for steam expansion the cylinder. I've been up all night thinking about this single acting I6.



6 cyl steam engine + high revolution= more steam consumption = larger boiler = uneconomical to run due more fuel to produce enough heat to boil water. 

Steam engine produce more torque than combustion engine from zero revolution. In case the steam engine is loaded, it will produce more torque in lower revolution. More revolution means more amount of steam and pressure ---> large boiler who is to large in the car.

The steam engine in a Stanley turns at quite a slow rate as compared to an internal combustion engine.  There is no transmission on a Stanley as the gear on the steam engine crankshaft is directly engaged with the ring gear of the differential.  There doesn't need to be a transmission as the engine can be stopped when the car is stopped ~ its just like a steam locomotive.  The speed a Stanley engine turns when traveling at a given speed ~ lets say 30 miles per hour ~ is actually more a function of the car's tire diameter than anything else.  For a 1918 Model 735 the tires are 36 inches in diameter giving a circumference of 113.112".  With 5,280 feet in a mile, that equates to 63,360 inches per mile and thus means a Stanley wheel turns 560.153 times per mile traveled.  Thus, if the Model 735 were traveling along at 30 MPH, each wheel makes 16,804.582 revolutions per hour, or is turning at a rate of 280.08 revolutions per minute!  The gearing ratio between the differential gear and the engine gear is 40 teeth on the engine gear and 60 teeth on the differential gear giving a 1.5:1 ratio. Thus the engine must turn at a slightly higher rate or 420.1 RPM when the car is traveling at 30 MPH.  To look at it slightly differently, a Stanley car traveling at 30 miles per hour has the engine turning over at a slower speed (420 RPM) than an internal combustion engine idles at when at rest (typically 650 RPM)!  The steam engine's crankshaft is turning 840 revolutions per mile traveled (the wheels rotate 560.153 times per mile traveled and the engine crankshaft turns 1-1/2 times for every wheel rotation).  With that slow speed there's not much opportunity for wear of engine parts.

To produce less steam and enough power to drive a car: 2 cylinder double acting steam engine or double compound steam engine for better economical running with condenser added in car + low revolution from steam engine in correct gear ratio to rotate wheel in average speed in normal traffic/land of road. The Stanley steam racing car ran up to 120 miles/hour in 1909 with 2 cylinder double acting steam engine, also uneccesary to have multiple cylindre steam engine or high revolution from steam engine.


----------



## kvom (Apr 20, 2016)

The Stanley engine had the capacity to generate a quite enormous HP output.  However the water/fuel capacity precluded operating at anywhere near its potential.


----------



## lohring (Apr 20, 2016)

Answers to a lot of your questions can be found in the Steam Automobile Club of America forum.  The early issues of their quarterly, also available on line, has articles by people who actually built steam cars.

Lohring Miller


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 20, 2016)

Forgotten to write in early post.. Do not have too big steam engine is to be believed that it performs best when you do not take the size of the boiler. Horsepower is determined by the boiler that produces steam flow / pressure steam engine will provide the best effect. Thus it is not the steam engine that determines horsepower. Too little steam boiler -> steam engine loses power.


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 20, 2016)

I also have to take into account engine balance so the engine will not shake its self apart.


----------



## Charles Lamont (Apr 20, 2016)

jazz256 said:


> I also have to take into account engine balance so the engine will not shake its self apart.



What rpm are you expecting to run this thing at? (I think you are worrying far too much about balance). Mechanicboy seems to be confusing engine capacity with number of cylinders.

If you are thinking of a single-acting engine I would go closer to square. The Sentinel S4 engine was 5.5" bore x 6" stroke, and was happy up to about 1500rpm, producing 124 bhp at 800rpm.

I would agree with looking carefully at other people's past work, and not going for much in the way of novelty. You are unlikely to be a significantly better engineer than all your many predecessors.


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 20, 2016)

I was also looking at Jay Carter's bash valve steam engine with the 5% cut off. Supposedly, it is hailed as one of the most efficient steam engines ever.


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 20, 2016)

Better yet, what engine you think will find in this?


----------



## MichaelWilliams (Apr 20, 2016)

The ideal reciprocating engine for a high performance steam car would be a variable configuration engine with several identical cylinders .

Take a simple example of an engine with three identical cylinders . This can be run as all cylinders high pressure or one cylinder high pressure exhausting into two low pressure cylinders as a compound . 

Self starting with maximum torque at lower speeds . Maximum economy at higher speeds .

More cylinders give more combinations . Five or six cylinders is the sensible limit for a practical design .


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 20, 2016)

So a inline six, with all the being 2" and the stroke 4 1/2" with a 5% percent cut off will work? To try and boost the efficiency some keep temps around 500 degrees F and the pressure high, 1000 to 2500 psi? And I will still have the power needed to achieve my goal. I am also running a condenser too.


----------



## lohring (Apr 21, 2016)

Another resource for all the things steam people have tried is Tom Kimmel's steam museum.  It will take several days to look through the various papers on his web site.  Chuk Williams converted an old Force 3 cylinder outboard engine to steam for his Bonneville record attempt.  Others have converted various Mercury outboards.  To get an idea of what the engine for a 150 mph streamliner looks like, see below.

Lohring Miller


----------



## MichaelWilliams (Apr 21, 2016)

There is no advantage in using steam with a pressure higher than a few hundred psi and with moderate superheat temperature in a piston engine intended for a practical car .


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 21, 2016)

My main idea was to build a high rpm, fast acting, self starting steam engine with good primary and secondary balance and variable cutoff for efficiency.


----------



## lohring (Apr 21, 2016)

Below is a a description of the SES steam car, one of the most successful modern steam cars.  This last gasp of automobile steam power promised low emissions and several projects were funded in the 1970s.  However it and the other steam powered vehicles couldn't compete in economy with the IC engine cars of the day and all serious research into steam power for cars stopped.  I doubt the situation has changed, even with more modern computer controls.  These days the only really efficient steam power plants are the large central electric generating stations.  Maybe you could argue that Teslas are steam powered in some parts of the country.

Lohring Miller 

View attachment SES Steam Car 1.pdf


View attachment SES Steam Car 2.pdf


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 22, 2016)

jazz256 said:


> My main idea was to build a high rpm, fast acting, self starting steam engine with good primary and secondary balance and variable cutoff for efficiency.



In the steam car? Nope... Stanley steam car was fast enough in acceleration with low rpm steam engine, it can lift front wheel in case acceleratorpedal was depressed fast down. Acceleration was 0-75 miles/hour at 5 seconds.

High rpm steam engine is a question about how much the flash boiler can produce an amount of steam per minute og how high will working pressure be.


----------



## Charles Lamont (Apr 22, 2016)

Mechanicboy said:


> High rpm steam engine is a question about how much the flash boiler can produce an amount of steam per minute ...



Jens, I am afraid your thinking on this is coming over as very muddled. You are right that the power output of the engine depends primarily on the power output of the boiler (and secondarily on the efficiency of the engine). However, you can get the same power output with a small, high-speed engine, or a with larger, lower-speed one. Relative engine to road speed depends on gearing. Personally I would go small.

jazz256, if you want a high-speed engine, why do you persist with talking about such a long-stroke configuration as 2" x 4.5"?


----------



## lohring (Apr 22, 2016)

Look at this video of Jay Leno's [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg_ukBwsyo"]Doble[/ame] to see what the last great steam car was like.  He has a great low tech explanation of how everything works.  His [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Me8b0ed59s"]Stanley[/ame] was more primitive and represents what most steam cars were like.  You can start to understand why an IC engine is much simpler than a really good steam plant.  Good luck trying to replicate it as a hobbyist.  A better project would be Richard Smith's Educator steam buggy or his steam bicycle.

Lohring Miller


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 22, 2016)

Charles Lamont said:


> Jens, I am afraid your thinking on this is coming over as very muddled. You are right that the power output of the engine depends primarily on the power output of the boiler (and secondarily on the efficiency of the engine). However, you can get the same power output with a small, high-speed engine, or a with larger, lower-speed one. Relative engine to road speed depends on gearing. Personally I would go small.
> 
> jazz256, if you want a high-speed engine, why do you persist with talking about such a long-stroke configuration as 2" x 4.5"?



Jazz 256 talked about a sports car with a "hyper trimmed" long stroke steam engine that is far from reality. Not even high speed steam turbine being useable in the car. Requires a "high trimmed" steam engine a more powerful boiler so there comes a question about traffic safety that day the boiler burst into pieces and damage people, animals and other ..

Flash boiler is the most expensive part to make and requires approval by authorities before being released into the traffic.

The real experience can be seen on the old steam cars in function.


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 22, 2016)

I apologize everyone, Im getting all over the place in thought and planning. I just want a even balance of steam expansion in the cylinder, engine balance, rpm and efficiency.


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 23, 2016)

Charles Lamont said:


> Jens, I am afraid your thinking on this is coming over as very muddled. You are right that the power output of the engine depends primarily on the power output of the boiler (and secondarily on the efficiency of the engine). However, you can get the same power output with a small, high-speed engine, or a with larger, lower-speed one. Relative engine to road speed depends on gearing. Personally I would go small.



Charles Lamont, To find out how much a steam engine consumes steam per indicated horsepower per hour and select a boiler in right size to give enough amount of steam. So we set up a formula:

Q= A x S x 60 x F : H

Q = Number of cubic meters of steam as the steam engine consumes per indicated horsepower per hour.

A = Piston area in square meters. If calculations are based in a compound steam engine or an expansion steam engine, then the value A = piston area in square meters in the high pressure cylinder.

S= Piston speed in meter per minute.

60 = Steam consumption per hour.

F = Filling of the cylinder. If the steam engine works with quartz filling (cut off) then be written F = 0.25. If the calculation relates to a steam engine where the steam is expanded in stages several cylinders, when the value will be F = filling of the high pressure cylinder. The other cylinders are not with under this calculation.

H= Total horsepower of the steam engine either it is 1 cylinder or multiple cylinder.

Written from the old book "Handbook for mechanics of Peder Lobben"/ Lommebok for mekanikere, Peder Lobben. Printed in 1938.


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 24, 2016)

So I just read about the Pritchard steam car and found something interesting. The car had a v twin double acting uniflow engine that had a maximum rpm of 4000. Can anyone explain this?


----------



## MichaelWilliams (Apr 25, 2016)

http://www.steamcar.net/uniflow-doble.html


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 25, 2016)

jazz256 said:


> The car had a v twin double acting uniflow engine that had a maximum rpm of 4000. Can anyone explain this?



The steam engine has very short stroke at 2" with cylinder bore 2 3/4" hence the steam engine has maximum revolution without load with a steam working pressure at 1200-1400 PSI. 
The Stanley has large stroke at 5" and a bit small bore at 4" who give 60 horsepower at 2500 revolution with a steam working pressure at 600 PSI and the engine gear has 40 teeth and the differential ring-gear 60, so the ratio is 1.5 to 1. Also normal driving is revolution lower than maximum revolution without load. Lower revolution ---> more torque because the boiler will produce more pressure to drive steamengine.

The 1924 model Doble Series E steam car could run for 1,500 miles (2,400 km) before its 24-gallon water tank needed to be refilled; even in freezing weather, it could be started from cold and move off within 30 seconds, and once fully warmed could be relied upon to reach speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour (140 km/h). In recent years Doble cars have been run at speeds approaching 120 mph (190 km/h), this without the benefits of streamlining, and a stripped down version of the Series E accelerated from 0 - 75 mph (121 km/h) in 10 seconds. Its fuel consumption, burning a variety of fuels (often kerosene), was competitive with automobiles of the day, and its ability to run in eerie silence apart from wind noise gave it a distinct edge. At 70 mph (110 km/h), there was little noticeable vibration, with the engine turning at around 900 rpm (boiler at 1200 PSI working pressure in Doble steam 
car).


----------



## jazz256 (Apr 26, 2016)

Question, I found an early proposed engine idea I had for the car I did a while back. My question is would a tandem compound steam engine work in a steam car?


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 27, 2016)

jazz256 said:


> Question, I found an early proposed engine idea I had for the car I did a while back. My question is would a tandem compound steam engine work in a steam car?




Yes, it is possible. Steam engine in tandem will be longer than side to side cylinder steam engine.


----------



## Richard1 (Apr 29, 2016)

Mechanicboy said:


> The steam engine has very short stroke at 2" with cylinder bore 2 3/4" hence the steam engine has maximum revolution without load with a steam working pressure at 1200-1400 PSI.



Does anyone have anymore information on the Pritchard engine? I think it would make an interesting model if I ever get the time to get back to the shop.


----------



## Mechanicboy (Apr 29, 2016)

Richard1 said:


> Does anyone have anymore information on the Pritchard engine? I think it would make an interesting model if I ever get the time to get back to the shop.



Here is the link to Pritchard engine: http://kimmelsteam.com/pritchard.html


----------



## windy (Apr 30, 2016)

Mechanicboy said:


> Forgotten to write in early post.. Do not have too big steam engine is to be believed that it performs best when you do not take the size of the boiler. Horsepower is determined by the boiler that produces steam flow / pressure steam engine will provide the best effect. Thus it is not the steam engine that determines horsepower. Too little steam boiler -> steam engine loses power.


 
You can have a beautiful engineered engine but my experience with my flash steamer it's the steam generator that's the heart of the power you can create.
Keep every thing simple it absorbs your power having a lot of moving parts in the engine.
My latest flash steam project is full size but will take a few years to have it running and will keep it under wraps till then.
A friend who will help me if required used to watch me when he was lad on his push bike chasing motorcycle speed records in the 70's says about his own mind blowing steam speed machine it's a motorbike that does not exist until he runs it in speed trials then it will be public knowledge.I have seen a static test as he is a professional engineer his work on his own and his friends gas turbine machine is first class


----------



## windy (Apr 30, 2016)

lohring said:


> Another resource for all the things steam people have tried is Tom Kimmel's steam museum. It will take several days to look through the various papers on his web site. Chuk Williams converted an old Force 3 cylinder outboard engine to steam for his Bonneville record attempt. Others have converted various Mercury outboards. To get an idea of what the engine for a 150 mph streamliner looks like, see below.
> 
> Lohring Miller


 
I'd like to know what is the fastest Chuk Williams has done to date on a one way run.


----------



## lohring (May 1, 2016)

Chuk wrecked his streamliner on its first high speed pass.  He was going over 140 at the time.  From Chuk:
"There has never a question in my mind regarding the stability of the  streamliner-it's always felt very stable and tracked like it was on  rails. Until this time at the Flats-that is. When we did the first  shakedown runs at Bonneville in October '12, the salt was hard and dry,  the vehicle tracked straight and was very stable.  

This time the track conditions were very different....as in-wet and  slushy. The handling of the vehicle was very different, and very  difficult. Nonetheless-the track conditions were not to blame for my  accident. 

The blame for the accident lies squarely on my shoulders. I packed the  parachute-I diverted my attention to the parachute release when it  didn't function as expected-those two things are the reasons for the  accident. The track conditions were a contributing factor, but if either  one of the two reasons above had functioned as they should have-the  accident would probably have never happened. I had control of the  vehicle all thru the run-right up to the 5-1/4 mile-when I diverted my  attention to the parachute release."

"Yes there is a video, taken from about 3/8th mile away. The photographer  was Randy Maxwell, affiliated with the guy who had the big truck with a  V16 with quad turbos. He was getting anything that looked interesting,  and part of that included my run-along with the accident. 
 [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbHzR3LGMtM&feature=youtu.be[/ame]
The video is 5+minutes long....Randy had the video running as we started  the vehicle at the start line in prep for the run. You can hear the  radio announcer thru out the tape, calling off speed as we progressed  down the track. Finally, at about the 2:10 portion of the tape you can  see the streamliner enter the video on the right. 
As you watch the streamliner progress down the track-moving from right  to left-you'll notice that as it passes the last two black  markers(they're the 1/4mile designator) the image of the vehicle changes  and you can see a fog of salt being thrown up....that's the beginning  of the end! Watch closely, and you'll see a small change in the image  again-with more salt being thrown up. At this point the vehicle makes a  ninety degree turn away from the camera-this is when it became airborne  for approx 400 feet-you see lots of pieces flying off/clouds of salt  obscuring your view because the vehicle is going away from the viewer.  If you pause and restart the video at this point(for a split second at a  time)you can see the vehicle go end-for-end at least once, before  finally rolling to a stop to the right of the body pieces. If you listen  closely during the crash you will hear the violence of it. Then you  will hear-and see-the emergency response teams doing their thing. "

Lohring Miller


----------



## windy (May 1, 2016)

lohring said:


> Chuk wrecked his streamliner on its first high speed pass. He was going over 140 at the time. From Chuk:
> "There has never a question in my mind regarding the stability of the streamliner-it's always felt very stable and tracked like it was on rails. Until this time at the Flats-that is. When we did the first shakedown runs at Bonneville in October '12, the salt was hard and dry, the vehicle tracked straight and was very stable.
> 
> This time the track conditions were very different....as in-wet and slushy. The handling of the vehicle was very different, and very difficult. Nonetheless-the track conditions were not to blame for my accident.
> ...


 
Thank you for the video link wonder what he will do if he has another attempt.


----------



## Mechanicboy (May 1, 2016)

windy said:


> Thank you for the video link wonder what he will do if he has another attempt.



Here is the steam car under test driving.. 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3eatDRIV-s"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3eatDRIV-s[/ame]


----------

