Need for speed, 19th Century style

[charmc]

There is a well researched and excellently written article by Donald Blount in the new issue of Professional Boatbuilder. The article describes the remarkable advances in speed of steam engine powered vessels in the 2nd half of the 19th Century. Parson's revolutionary turbine powered Turbinia hit 34.5 knots in 1897, but Thornycroft built a 40' steam engine powered boat that reached nearly twice hull speed in 1863. 10 years later, another small (45') Thornycroft steam engine launch exceeded 21 mph. From then until the turn of the century, a variety of yachts, launches, and (of course) military vessels reached speeds between 30-40 mph and 2-3.5 times hull speed with reciprocating steam engine power.

The digital edition hasn't been posted yet, but Blount and his associates located some unique photos of some early vessels running at high speeds. One series of photos illustrates the challenges of designing hulls for such high speeds: a boat is shown submarining as it accelerates to maximum speed. There are 2 early diagrams showing experimental add ons to modify round bottom hulls with hard chines.

Eventually it will be available for viewing or purchase on the magazine's website. I congratulate all those involved and recommend the article to anyone interested in early powerboat history.

[Fanie]

Interesting Charlie, now if we could just get hydrofusion to work as we want it to, the very water your boat sits on could create those old things over again but with some new technologies, better speed, cheaper and more healthy.

[waterman]

Something to consider in that article: at that time planing craft were unheard of. At the time, it was believed that it was impossible to exceed hull speed. Exceeding hull speed or achieving 2 times the hull speed was breaking new ground.

[PAR]

They knew they could exceed the theoretical limits imposed by LWL, but they weren't sure how much. They had both light weight "skimming dishes" (sand baggers) and catamarans, that easily trounced the displacement speeds of similar length craft. Not to mention dozens of different types of small craft like sharpies and scows.

Several designs dating back to the mid 1700's clearly show bottoms developed for planning craft (intended to generate substantial lift underway). These were first pulled down canals, latter in the early 19th century, steam power. The generally and seemingly universally accepted hull shape was the slightly inclined, straight rabbit bottom, through the late 1800's, where Herreshoff tried a "fat stern" hull form (wide transom to prevent squatting), which after tested, he didn't like (too much drag at lower speeds) as much as the inclined bottom he was most familiar with. Others took up the low transom designs and by the turn of the 20th century, when gas engines begin to over power steam, mid twenties was quite common, with 30's for exceptionally powered vessels.

[Meanz Beanz]

Now I want to see that Charlie.

[masalai]

But you wouldn't really consider it an option to replace any existing marine vessel except for "nostalgia" or personal amusement...

[charmc]

But you wouldn't really consider it an option to replace any existing marine vessel except for "nostalgia" or personal amusement...

No, my interest in the article is in the great advances in speed and in engine design in an earlier era. My impression of a steam engine powerplant, from having been in the engine rooms of USS Maine, several paddle wheel riverboats, and a few old factories with stationary Sterling engines, was a huge, heavy, iron construction with coal boiler that went pocketa pocketa pocketa. Hard to imagine African Queen doing 30 knots, with Humphrey Bogart running around tying rags around the steam piping. :D

These boats were in a whole different world. The article widened my horizons, reminding me that powerboat speed didn't originate with the internal combustion engine.

[masalai]

True Charlie,
Nothing like the "romance" in the old vessels... Go and admire the workmanship, elegance and beauty... A bonus is if it is in working order and for a small fee go for a ride!!!

[PAR]

From a fuel useage view point many of these early powercraft were far more efficent. They had HP to engine weight ratios in the hundreds of pounds per range, meaning they had to have very efficent hull shapes. 25 HP may have required a 2,500 pound engine, not to mention the coal stores to fuel it. Gas and "heavy oil" engines reduced this quite a bit, but it took the better part of a half a century to do so.

By the earily 1960's a 30 HP outboard was developing a single HP per 5 pounds of engine and fuel, so efficent shapes weren't required and fat butted tubs became the fashion, which is still with us today. This will not likely change until, fuel costs rise considerably more.

[masalai]

OK Par I am with you now, US$200 a barrel by Xmas.... That should get things going in a better (more fuel efficient direction) quickly...

[PAR]

I'm hoping the worry, over certain reports of oil futures on the commodities market in the next 5 years will blow out soon, so the price can stabilize, maybe around 150 a barrel. The yachting industry will be the last to accept new tooling and molds, so don't hold your breath for narrow, efficient boats in the next few years. Designers and builders have weathered similar "black" years or slow trends in the past, but will likely ride it out and hope the can eventually liquidate their inventory. It will weed out the weak and small, non-divested manufactures, but most have their hands in quite a few different operations.

I'm personally a fan of some of these old, narrow and efficient hull forms and would love to see a come back. With my luck they'll find a huge, previously unknown oil reserve under Washington DC, place rigs on the lawn of the White House and we'll be living in happy, low cost fuel land again.

[safewalrus]

But I doubt it PAR!!

Fuel is changing and so is the capacity to stow it, or use it! Now nuclear is rather good - nuclear subs tend to be steam engines!! Not because steam engines are good but because the boiler end is so damn efficient anything else is pointless! (in a nutshell - I'm sure you can put that in a more technical way that will use about twenty six pages - never use one page were ten will do!)

No efficiency of hull shape should be the norm, wither it be because of weather or the requiremnt for speed! Then it's the size ans shape of the power plant! lets get away from these short fat little boats and get back to long lean beautiful machines! Either power or sail!!

[bear]

How 'bout one of these? http://www.sky-net.org.uk/kelvin/launches/index.html

[DanishBagger]

But I doubt it PAR!!

Fuel is changing and so is the capacity to stow it, or use it! Now nuclear is rather good - nuclear subs tend to be steam engines!! Not because steam engines are good but because the boiler end is so damn efficient anything else is pointless! (in a nutshell - I'm sure you can put that in a more technical way that will use about twenty six pages - never use one page were ten will do!)

Come now - I have never seen any posts from the hand of PAR that were longwinded. Some have been long, but only to explain something - in full detail - to numbnuts like you and me.

[PAR]

I don't expect real change to affect the industry, until fuel prices in this country reach the $7 - $8 per gallon range, which means the world will be suffering through $300 a barrel pricing.

[masalai]

Expect that pricing sooner than later, and probably a lot sooner than you think or would like.... :D:D:D:P

[Willallison]

One of my all time favourites was Maple Leaf IV, the first vessel to hit 40 knots. She featured quite prominently in one of Uffa Fox's fabulous books (as did Turbina)
Many of these older boats have a certain grace that is so lacking in todays barges. Sadly, as I've stated before, I don't think we'll see much of a change until it becomes socially unacceptable to be seen owning an inefficient boat.

Thanks for the heads-up on the article... Proboat takes so long to reach our side of the pond, but is always worth the wait

[FAST FRED]

"But you wouldn't really consider it an option to replace any existing marine vessel except for "nostalgia" or personal amusement."

WELL.... The Style of some of the old boats was grand!

I'm in love with the concept of a comfy bow cockpit (for nice days) and those always fitted awnings aft look far better than baby buggy stuff of today.

I am still a fan of the b"look" of STROLLER , a '29's Herrishoff Commuter style boat (posted on this board) .

Really fine is the folks on the back deck are reclining on a couch like area almost 4 ft deep!

With modern fly weight auto recycled diesels (BMW Yannmar) with power to weight ratios they couldn't dream of in the Sterling Era, and strong GRP or aluminum that could probably reduce the hull weight by 3/4, a fas economical cruiser should be OTS today.

Just so long as it looks YARE,, not like a NIKE its good with me!

FF

[safewalrus]

Danish I was being a 'smart arse' PAR is after all one of the Naval Architect gang most of whom I would't be seen dead with (ther's a couple of exceptions two of who are on here, I won't say who because I wouldn't want to ruin their rep-ar-tations)!!!

[PAR]

Personally, I'd like to see all boats powered with C-7 units, those decaying isotope batteries they use on satellites and interplanetary spacecraft. They have zero emissions (well don't break one open and eat the contents) and they are a quite safe source of electricity, which don't require coal, oil or a big ass hydro powered dam to recharge. NASA has been using them for decades with impeccable reliability.

Safe, I've managed to ruin my reputation without the help of anyone. Apparently (according to the one who must be obeyed) I've specialized in just this, over the years.

Will and Fred, I have a soft spot (okay, other then the one on the side of my head) for the early steam powered torpedo boats, like Dupont (1897, 27 knots) or the launch Swiftshore. George Watson developed some really fine models. Some of these boats were so efficient that their fuel bill across 20 years of service, was that of a single year for the gas engines and fat hulls to follow of similar speed and capacity.

[longliner45]

gonna happen,,,,,300 dallars a barrle,,longliner

[masalai]

Then watch all the tankers rush to port to discharge and realise their profit, and all the rest try to sell as futures or sommat, then chaos as some realise their tankers are full of "salt water".... he he he....

[FAST FRED]

I have a soft spot for the early steam powered...

There has been great tech improvements in engines over the decades, although steam seems to have been left behind.

Anyone know how to convert a big turbo from a truck into a steam turbine?

Any progress on 4 stage steam engines that can match the advances in diesels?

Sure would be nice to cruise , just tossing bags of coal (still cheapest fuel) into a boiler.

Of course either the Air Police , or some "steam shovelers" union guy might mess it up!

But almost silent steam at least wont suffer the price of batterys from UNOBTANIUM .

FF

[charmc]

There has been great tech improvements in engines over the decades, although steam seems to have been left behind.
Any progress on 4 stage steam engines that can match the advances in diesels?
Sure would be nice to cruise , just tossing bags of coal (still cheapest fuel) into a boiler.
Of course either the Air Police , or some "steam shovelers" union guy might mess it up!
But almost silent steam at least wont suffer the price of batterys from UNOBTANIUM .FF

Here is a modern design for a compact steam engine. Even shows a guy living Fred's fantasy. :D
http://www.greensteamengine.com/

[FAST FRED]

"It may also be use for air-conditioning and refrigeration pumps, as well as air circulation systems. It may be run on air or steam."

If it could run of the propulsion engines exhaust , it could be really useful.

But the site is 4 years old , and I'm not seeing them anywhere.

FF

[PAR]

I see several issues with this steam engine design. The site suggests no lubrication is required, but those piston/cylinder wall interfaces will need some sort of lube. As would the flexible yoke and the bearings, which appear lightly loaded, but at reasonable RPM will get hot enough to warrant something.

With all "air" engines, you have to generate pressurized gas (compressed air or steam) which offers the question "how". Do you carry a bunk of coal around and a traditional box/boiler? Do you use a electric motor to drive a compressor, with a generator mounted to the steam engine? What about the diminishing returns on a hybrid setup like this? How much charge to lose rate?

You could burn wood or any flammable material, but the light weight of the actual engine, which admittedly is a clever design, will likely be offset by fuel stores and other related gear, such as a boiler, of which I've never seen a light weight version.

On the other hand, I do see applications for such a device, solar powered steam. Picture a parabolic mirror, with a celestial tracking motor affixed (like the systems used on telescopes). This mirror dish is used to focus sunlight onto a boiler, with it's contents used to drive the engine, possible in a double or triple expansion arrangement to increase efficiency. In a boat the device would have practical limitations, but as a power generating unit, land based, it has great potential. Hooked to a big generator, you could use a relatively small engine to eliminate your electric bill, possibly make more then you need, selling the remainder back to the power company. I personally use about 2,000 to 3,000 KW per month. This isn't that big an engine/generator combo, if you get say 6 hours per day at 16 KW total output (for the day).

[masalai]

Heck Par, what are you running? several workshops and maintaining your house temperature at 25C in winter and 18C in summer? I am using 1200kw in 90 days! and missing nothing in convenience/comfort and EVERYTHING is electric......?

[PAR]

My load last month was around 1,900 KW, but it was reasonably moderate weather. I have two 5 ton A/C units and a 2.5 ton, almost 3,200 sq. ft. of living space under air and a barn that is also air conditioned. Tool loads and general household needs run around 2,200 to 2,500, but summer months can make the A/C units suck down some bigger clumps of electrons.

[masalai]

You are still burning 4 to 6 times my usage?????? - time to rebuild something that is solar efficient (aligned to use sun angles & prevailing breezes), insulated, can catch cooling breezes and be sheltered from cold winter storms....

[charmc]

Electric power consumption is measured in KWH, meaning kw hours. KW is an instantaneous measurement, like horsepower. Paul, at 2500 kwh/month you are averaging about 3.5 kw per hour (3.5 kw x 720 hours in a month = 2520 kwh per month). Not bad for the larger than average loads you described.

Brian, you're using less than half a kw per hour, does your wife let you have a dancing girl waving a fan to keep you cool? :D

[masalai]

Just a well designed passive system and a benign climate... Queensland, perfect one day better the next?.... 70m above sea level NE views over the Pacific, sheltered from the cold SW/SE winds, cooled by the summer breezes..... no restrictions on power usage - just use what we want/need to keep comfortable... last bill was 1200 KWH for the preceding 90 days....

[charmc]

Just a well designed passive system and a benign climate... Queensland, perfect one day better the next?.... 70m above sea level NE views over the Pacific, sheltered from the cold SW/SE winds, cooled by the summer breezes..... no restrictions on power usage - just use what we want/need to keep comfortable... last bill was 1200 KWH for the preceding 90 days....

OK, so you live in Paradise (climatewise, anyway, that really is ideal, you fortunate bathplug :) ). I noticed you ducked my question. :P :P

[masalai]

Sometimes she dances (my wife) for me but that just makes me tooooo hot... And cannot find any fans?? - did you mean 7 veils? - - that is my business - private........

[charmc]

Back to Fred's question and PAR's comments about modern steam power innovations:

http://www.pritchardpower.com/Our%20History.html

http://www.amovis.de/en/dampf.htm

Both companies are looking at automotive testing initially, but there doesn't appear to be any reason the technologies could not be adapted for marine use.

[masalai]

The problem is still in generating steam.... - - - For the steam engine silly....

[charmc]

Pritchard's boiler looks pretty compact, has to be to fit under a Falcon bonnet. The site doesn't give any specifics, though.

Here's a proposed compact boiler:

"This paper describes the design and preliminary testing of a steam boiler suitable for use in a steam engine powered car. The boiler has a nominal rating (based on water entering at 100 °C when producing steam at 40 bar, 400 °C) of 135 kW. The volume of the boiler (excluding the burner) is approximately 0.06 m3, giving a volumetric power density of over 2 MW/m3. Mechanical design of the boiler is such that the operating temperature and pressure may be increased to improve overall system performance."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V1Y-4FH4V28-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6ef9c2a509d6e5c2f411fc18e8a62c6e

[Knut Sand]

I'm personally a fan of some of these old, narrow and efficient hull forms and would love to see a come back.

You're not quite alone on that one. count me in.


Also noted in this thread, steam:
Steam is not a (real) problem it can be generated from a boiler, there is not a big problem making a boiler suited for wood, coal, propane gas. As a possible solution, and "fast" take off, a superheater for generating steam can be used (fast, as in approx 10 minutes). that superheater will need gas, in the starting period, but the boiler can then be switched over to wood/ pellets or whatever, you only need a fire...

One funny thing about most steam engines; max torque at minimum speed. :D

Steam for mr.average; Nag Nag (me...).
Handling a boiler is not for fools, I've noted as the TV programs get more stupid, the newspapers get more orientated towards fame, and papparazzi targets, we tend to be let's say comfortably numb. What the average Joe normally wants is something he can put a key into, engage, drive, brain unengaged...
A boiler is not a thing, it's a creature, it can take you places, where you intend, or straight to St.Peter (or to the furnaces of Hell).
I've seen a 2 year old boiler to go scrapmetal due to bad water treatment and neglect in operation - 2 years!

And here's the catch....
If I remember correctly 1 bar of dynamite expands to 730 ltrs of gas, (okay where's this fool goin now, with his arguments...)
Please read this, carefully:
You need only 3-4 litres of water, overheated, at 12 bar pressure to replace that with 1 bar of dynamite.... Got your attention there eh?
Now to the scenario: A boiler is in fact a wound up spring, It's not an explosion waiting to happen, it's already happened, but the steel is your friend ("Steel is Strong, and God is Good") The steel keeps all of these unvanted alternative experiences in place. A small boiler for a boat would have, mnjaa, letssee, 60 litres (really small) thats equivalent to 20 bars of dynamite if something goes wrong.

Ok you're in a boat, steam operated, not alone, the boiler is not propery maintained, a standing boiler, let's assume they have not blown off the setteling water for a while, that will result in some shoepolish looking stuff at the bottom of the boiler, this will act as insulation, The steel in the furnace room will not be "cooled" from the water in the boiler. Steel temperature in the furnace of the boiler will rise, higher temperature, lower yield strength in the steel....
Now, one of the kids have a birthday, so instead of taking all these noisy little people to Mc Donalds, you take them out on the water for a different experience... Operation is "normal", pressure is normal,
and then the furnace room in the boiler caves in....
A perfect recipie for a bad day, is parts of steel flying around, "high speed steel" suddenly get a strange twist to the understanding of it, add some steam at scolding temperature (scolding by steam cannot be described -period), add a sinking/ burning boat to that again.... Can't get too much more interesting than that.

Personally I would never have a problem with a steam engine/ boiler, I openly admit I'm partly nerd. So a boiler/ steam solution is in my opinion perfectly ok for a tech nerd. Most brainless people should however never be let close to a boiler, much too close to a Darwin award experience.

And the youth factor (been there, done that), if you feel it's not going fast enough, you can always knock the safetyvalves down, all you need is a piece of wood, remove the cap of the safety valves, place the wood on top of the spindle, force the wood against the roof; Voila! "anyboy wants to go waterskiing?" (seen that... :rolleyes: )

How far a steam engine solution can go? Just put some braincells to the problem, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doble_Steam_Car

Take todays technology, pressure switches, PH indicators, O2 measuring equipment, safety valves, and burst discs with venting to safe area, Something that measures the scale thickness, put that in a 100% foolproof box: I'm in, even with the fool mentioned above, "behind the wheel". :D

Btw; when I die, I know where i'll be going..... :D

[PAR]

There may be a potential for steam yet, but the same things that doomed it 100 years ago still haunt it today. Weight, startup time and fuel stores, not to mention boilers that can go boom. Leaving aside the blowing up boiler thing, this new engine does address the massive weight within the system issue, but you still have fuel stores, start up time and boiler weight problems to contend with.

Boiler weight pretty much cancels out the gains made with the dramatically lower weight engine. Even though there has been a weight reduction in the engine/boiler combo, the modern world will not wait even a few minutes to build up a head of steam. They've got to drop it in gear after "cranking it over" and go. This coupled with having to really monitor gauges (or else) just is a death nail to low power steam applications.

With computer organized controls, you could take the operator out of the loop in regard to systems management, but this brings us full circle back to start up time, fuel stores weight (and volume) and critical decision making when a system failure is detected. Even the most automatic systems usually require people to intervene at certain points along the critical failure curve. This is a difficult option if the system is nearly autonomous.

My electrical load isn't particularly high. I live on the 28 parallel, which places me in a sub tropical environment. Charlie is correct in that we meter KWH. With the size of my house and barn, I'm fairly far under the norm. The usage was much higher, when I got here, but I balanced out the 6 different panels, tossed in some diodes, sealed things up and placed high but non-essential loads on timers, to curb their continued draw when not needed. This coupled with programmable thermostats have reduced the KWH use by about 30%.

I've given serious thought the to the prospect of using a solar boiler to drive a 12K generator with this light weight engine (likely about 20HP). This would eliminate my electric bill, plus some, if driven around 6 hours a day. One thing Charlie and I have in abundance is sunshine, maybe 350 days of the year. Putting it to work making steam to drive this little engine sounds reasonable, but more importantly cost effective, which is the biggest stumbling block to many alternate energy sources.

Wind generators can work, but they need at least 10 steady knots (plus zoning), everyday, which isn't common, where I'm at. Then the initial costs take many years to pay down with the energy savings. Solar is worse in this regard.

This is why I like the idea of sun powered boilers and a simple steam engine. The initial cost is modest, water can come from a well (I have two on the property now), sunshine is intense and daily, up keep appears modest and developing a size that can take me off the grid is within grasp with a single unit, not several wind mills or many banks of solar panels.

[Knut Sand]

Steam used correctly is an extremely good carrier of energy (can I phrase it like that?). But as mentioned, also dangerous.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/buildings-evacuated-after-midtown-explosion/

or;

http://images.google.no/images?hl=no&q=steam+boiler+explosion&btnG=S%C3%B8k+etter+bilder&gbv=2

Look at the spagetti at the first picture...

But to point out (midtown -explosion); to have a 24" steam pipe from 1924 buried in a way that makes it more or less impossible to inspect (/pressure test?). That is hardly not "Sound Engineering Practice"...

Christ, Osama Bin Laden can take a vacation....:rolleyes:

1924 and 24"......:rolleyes:

[Knut Sand]

How 'bout one of these? http://www.sky-net.org.uk/kelvin/launches/index.html

That does it, now I have to dry up the keyboard, forgot to close my mouth there for too long time.;)

btw, I like most of these lines, think of modern materials....

[charmc]

This is why I like the idea of sun powered boilers and a simple steam engine. The initial cost is modest, water can come from a well (I have two on the property now), sunshine is intense and daily, up keep appears modest and developing a size that can take me off the grid is within grasp with a single unit, not several wind mills or many banks of solar panels.

Paul,

Good thinking. I'm convinced a solar boiler would work and pay back within a reasonable time, particularly in view of the projected increases in US electricity charges (pun unintended). Be careful and treat your feedwater. Even seemingly "sweet" well water has far too many dissolved minerals for boiler use.

[DanishBagger]

Steam used correctly is an extremely good carrier of energy (can I phrase it like that?).

Well, you ought to be able to. A fuel cell (i.e. hydrogen) is just an energy carrier, just like a normal battery can be thought to be a carrier of energy. Neither of those are energy sources, but "merely" a way to store the energy produced.
So, yes, steam is certainly an energy carrier.

Now, caveat emptor, I'm the guy who apparently ends sentences with a preposition, so nothing I say makes sense :p


Edit: I did a search on "energy carrier" and "steam", and I found a - to a pure amateur like me - great link. Not so much because of the energy carrier-information, but because it shows a modern "steam plant", and examples of products that were manufactured with the help of steam:

http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/introduction/steam-the-energy-fluid.asp

[charmc]

Now, caveat emptor, I'm the guy who apparently ends sentences with a preposition, so nothing I say makes sense :p


That flaw in your English posting is something up with which we will not put. :D :D

[DanishBagger]

That flaw in your English posting is something up with which we will not put. :D :D

Well done!!
:cool: