# Use MODERN Materials for build?????



## Fumarium (Mar 16, 2013)

Hello; I've often wondered why conventional steam engines HAVE NOT been constructed of modern materials? Some examples is "Torlon" it is a plastic used to construct race engine blocks. OR carbon fiber? OR fiber glass? OR custom metals for push rods? OR Teflon for pistons and barrels???

Could folks please comment on this????

 - I'm guessing the engine would weight MUCH less, spin MUCH faster, be MUCH more efficient. Etc.


----------



## Mbusha (Mar 16, 2013)

Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature." More specific aesthetic theory, often with practical implications, relating to a particular branch of the arts is divided into areas of aesthetics such as art theory, literary theory, film theory and steam engines.

Blatant internet plagiarism.  But, that would be what I think, at least as it applies to models.


----------



## aarggh (Mar 16, 2013)

Shiny works for me every time! Or what Mark said!

Cheers, Ian


----------



## Kaleb (Mar 16, 2013)

Some of these materials can be hard to get hold of for us hobbyists, and/or are difficult to work with. Also some of us (at least I do) will often perceive plastics and the like as being inferior to metals.


----------



## chipenter (Mar 16, 2013)

Anybody who watches F1 racing can see that the most modern materials don't always last very long , yes they go fast but struggle to make the engines last three races , you pays your money and takes your choice .


----------



## jerrybilt (Mar 16, 2013)

Do they still make steam engines? Diesel electric locomotives seem to have taken over.  Any way one would use materials to suit the particular job. Modern engines do use " modern " materials. Automotive manufacturers are a good example. These people are not only conservative but pragmatic and one should look closely at the materials used in a modern engine and gear box. Look at the Bugatti  Veyron.

Any way thats my 2 cents worth,

Jerry.


----------



## Tin Falcon (Mar 16, 2013)

Fumarium: An interesting question. 

The age of steam spanned from about 1815 to 1915 give or take a few years.  A few factories still exist that run on traditional steam engines.  
In the same time period metal was the material of choice for making just about everything. many toys were made from cast iron. 
 The reason many of us build model engines is to preserve the tradition, aesthetics and history of the steam age. so it makes sense to me for those working toward this goal it to use traditional material. 

Now it is 2113 not 1813 or 1913 . for reasons of improved technology improved safety and the changes in economics of materials and manufacturing a lot has changes in deed. there is no longer a foundry in almost every town ,toys are made mostly of plastic , and coffee cans that were ones made of steel come in plastic or cardboard containers. Steam turbines run industry, along with hydro electric plants wind and solar.  

The changes of modern manufacturing also give us the hobbyist the access to machining tools one affordable to only industrial shops. The internet and improved logistics give us access to the world for a corner store. I can buy from a store in Hong Kong as easily as a trip to the local hardware store.  

Some of us do use non traditional materials in our modern engines. Aluminum is common an affordable an used a lot. I have made several engines from Corian and Lucite/plexiglass/perplex  for the bodies. I have made pistons from teflon.  Engine bases from Corian are popular. 

I wanted to experiment with DuPont vespel . It is designed for plain bearings and is available in several grades.   SO  $9.00 USD from McMaster Carr for a 3/8' diameter 1" long piece. Yes 1 inch 25.4 mm. no way.The QC manager at the factory was unwilling to give me a handful of scrap. and I do not steal so I do not use Vespel. 
correction a 1 inch piece is $35 the  a small hat bushing is $80 .

The bottom line is you may be able to build a modern style steam engine from the modern materials  but it would not be a traditional steam engine. And if you use exotic material it would be too expensive for  the hobbyist. That is unless one can scrounge some surplus material. 

Most of the materials I listed as using came from someones scrap bin into my stock bin. Hope this helps and give you the answer you needed. 


Please post an introduction in the welcome area tell us a bit about yourself, you shop,your machine tools, your location  and your interests in model engine building. that way we can give a proper welcome and know better how to help you. 

Tin


----------



## Paulsv (Mar 16, 2013)

Fumarium-  I think you have posed a very interesting question.  Commercial development of the piston steam engine pretty much stopped in the early 1900's when the internal combustion engine took over.  Modellers generally try to create scale models of full sized engines, retaining the design and style of the original.  But think about all of the development and refinement of the internal combustion engine since, say, 1920.  If all of that improvement and refinement had been carried out on piston steam engines, what would they look like today?  How efficient and powerful would they be?  What would they be made out of?  (They sure wouldn't have sliding box valves made out of solid brass!)  How would they be styled?  What would boilers and burners look like?  Of course the steam turbine is still in use, and has undergone such improvements, so there are probably lots of clues there.  I understand aesthetics, but in good design, form follows function, and a new aesthetic is developed.


----------



## MachineTom (Mar 16, 2013)

The machine tools that we all have in our shops, match in function at least those that were used in late 19 and 20th century's. It is therefore much easier to make models of those products with the tools we have. The exposed parts the move add the the drama of the model, Form, Motion, Sounds, all play together to create interest.

Turbines were build in the beginning of the 20th century on manual machines like ours. The Titanic had one steam turbine, a football shaped metal box, with pipes , valves and a shaft. And 2 three story tall triple expansion engines with Rods,levers, Gears, pistons, all moving in a choreographed sound and movement. It would surely be a sight few alive today have ever seen, which also may add to the mystic of reciprocating steam engine.

Modern materials add little to modelling, most any plastic cost more per pound than the types of steel most use, and often more than the cost of AL. Ti is nice but small machines have issues working it, and it cost $20 a pound, even scrap is expensive. The copper based brass and bronze, traditional material for models, is pricey at $8 pound. It machines easily and looks good, I just hate paying the price, but there is little choice.

Stuff like carbon fiber is a engineered material, it is applied in a certain way to handle the loads it is designed for. if the load is applied in a direction that it was not designed for it fails. Having used CF tape and Rods in model aircraft, I know how strong the stuff can be. But they need to be made for the application.


----------



## Philjoe5 (Mar 16, 2013)

I've often wondered where the steam engine would be today with the application of modern techniques and materials.  Although steam engine efforts don't often make mainstream news a notable exception was the speed record set by a British team in 2009 that had been previously held for 100 years.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/08/british-steam-car-record-2/

This article suggests lots of modern thinking went into this project:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/vintage-speed/4270456

Cheers

Phil


----------



## jerrybilt (Mar 16, 2013)

Trace the evolution of things like clocks and marine chronometers from Harrisons time (sic.) to the present and you will see something quite similar. The ornate, beautiful and exquisite clocks of yester year replaced by the cheap and staid but extremely accurate digital clocks. No mater how much one dresses up a digital clock it will not get pride of place in a display!

A high speed aircraft looks beautiful because of its function - trace the use of the materials used in aircraft from the Wright Bros. to today. 

Interestingly the things like CAT scanners were feasible in 1815 but it took huge advances in materials and the science of computation to make these a common reality.

To interested readers I would refer you to a book that investigates values and " The underlying form" where the author ( Persig ) refers to adjusting the tappet clearance in the BMW engine as a religious experience. The book is " Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ".


----------



## OrangeAlpine (Mar 16, 2013)

The shortcomings of the steam engine are not due to the design of the motor or the materials it is made of, but to the characteristics of the working fluid.   The old timers had an amazing grasp of the issues and addressed them brilliantly.  I really don't think there is much to be gained playing around with modern bearing materials and lightweight components.

But this is a hobby.  Experiment to your hearts content, just don't expect giant breakthroughs in steam technology.

Bill


----------



## Hopper (Mar 17, 2013)

The Stirling model guys are ahead of the curve on this one.
Graphite pistons, precision glass tube cylinders, micro-ball bearings on crankshafts and con-rods and mostly aluminium construction are common on those engines. As are teflon seals, silicon sealant and latex rubber diaphragms.

The steam boys really do need to try to keep up.


----------



## Entropy455 (Mar 17, 2013)

Steam engines are alive and well.

Every Navy ship with a propulsion boiler (nuclear or oil-fired) drives the propeller via steam turbines. Virtually every shore-based electrical power plant (with exception of hydro-electric and wind) drives generators via steam turbines.

Steam turbines replaced steam piston engines because turbines have superior thermodynamic efficiency. When youre paying big-bucks for fuel, you want to maximize thermodynamic efficiency  and piston engines are far too wasteful. Steam turbine plants take advantage of air-ejected condensers, multi-stage turbines, with reheat stages  all of which add significant efficiency.

As far as alternate materials - when youre pumping hundreds of megawatts of thermal power into a steam turbine 24-7, youre going to use materials that are proven to hold up. Turbine casings are cast of high-chrome steel. Stator blades and turbine blades are constructed of heat-treatable 400-series martensitic stainless steel. Shafts are supported via pressurized oil lubricated babbitt journal bearings. You will not find any composites or plastics within a modern steam engine. . . . Aside from maybe gaskets. . . .


----------



## OrangeAlpine (Mar 17, 2013)

Entropy455 said:


> Steam engines are alive and well.
> 
> Every Navy ship with a propulsion boiler (nuclear or oil-fired) drives the propeller via steam turbines. Virtually every shore-based electrical power plant (with exception of hydro-electric and wind) drives generators via steam turbines.
> 
> ...


Yes, the modern steam engine is a turbine, that is because the I.C. engine replaced the reciprocating steam engine in low hp or automotive type applications.  

The piston engine is the only candidate for most of the traditional steam applications.  Consider building a garden tractor powered by a turbine.  Then consider one powered by a reciprocating steam motor utilizing a design of over a hundred years ago, say a Mason engine.  I think the choice is obvious.

But all that aside, there is little to be gained in improving on the Mason engine or the pinnacle of that type, the Doble.  Those guys really had their act together.

Bill


----------



## Entropy455 (Mar 17, 2013)

I know of a 2000 horsepower steam turbine that weighs less than a 6-71 Detroit diesel. I would love to install this turbine engine into my bulldozer with a 4:1 reduction gear, and dispose of the noisy 6-71. However theres no space for a boiler, or boiler fuel, or any space for a condenser. Theres also the small issue of plumbing in a cold water supply for cooling the condenser. Perhaps I could drag a pressurized fire-hose behind the dozer? The field might get a bit muddy. . . which is probably why steam turbines are not utilized within land-based mobile machinery.

A few notes: 

Modern coal-fired (steam-turbine) power plants can achieve upwards of 32% thermodynamic efficiency. Again, thats using air-ejected condensers, and multi-stage turbines with reheat stages.

Internal combustion engines average about 25% thermodynamic efficiency, and do so without the need to maintain makeup feed-water, or continuously fuel-feeding a boiler.

Traditional piston steam engines will be lucky to exceed 5% thermodynamic efficiency.

Point being  you can build an oil-fired piston steam engine for your tractor, or you can build an internal combustion engine for your tractor. Pound for pound, youll burn about 5 times more fuel-oil to drive the steam engine, than youll burn within an internal combustion engine - for a given crankshaft power output.

I can assure you that if piston steam engines were 5 times more fuel efficient than internal combustion engines, we would all be driving steam powered cars. It always comes down to the cost of fuel. . . .


----------



## cncjunior (Mar 17, 2013)

There have been people that have developed steam well past the 1940's in locomotive design.  An example is Ing. L. D. Porta from Argentina, and others.  There is the Caprotti valve design, and the lempor exhaust system.  I read that with all of these advancements the efficiency of steam could come close to that of the ic engine.  Not sure if that would be correct though one would think that given the steam turbine is what is used in most power generating plants the efficiency must be high.  If enough funds could be directed into steam energy like there is in IC engines then you have to wonder what the modern steam engine would be like.

Please don't get me wrong.  I have a tremendous fondness for steam engines of yesteryear, with all the exposed workings.  I even would go as far as saying that the streamlined locos don't have the same appeal for me.

Returning once again to the modern materials and space age technologies that the reciprocating parts would be lighter and therefore have less loss in efficiency one the full size scale.

For us modelers efficiency isn't an issue.  How to machine that darn complex casting is.

Daniel


----------



## Hopper (Mar 18, 2013)

Then they took the steam out of the turbine and fired the gas directly into the blades.
You can power a tractor with a gas turbine.

So, does that make the modern jet engine the ultimate development of the steam engine?


----------



## Rivergypsy (Mar 18, 2013)

Now there's a thought, Bill, a garden tractor powered by a turbine... That might get me cutting the grass a bit more often, lmfao!:big:


----------



## Fumarium (Mar 23, 2013)

The reason I asked about "modern materials" was - if a simple single speed 360rpm, 25Hp/18.65kW triple expansion could be "designed for manufacturing" with plastics, carbon fiber, fiber glass, Torlon, Teflon, etc., connected to a 18kW Alternator.

I'm guessing it could be like ICs, the first one costs 1.3 Million dollars, the next one ( and _*all*_ the ones after ) costs $1.49. The expenses would be the molds, jigs, frames, etc. After that you could pump them out like popcorn!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Whatcha Think?????


----------



## OrangeAlpine (Mar 24, 2013)

I think you've still got that damn boiler.

Bill


----------

