Re: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Landon Solomon]

I have modified the tube in my Ruby such that it does not spit out the stack 
anymore.  I shortened and pinched the origional tube then filed a hole just 
below stack level.  This way the spray goes in the smokebox and falls down 
onto the track but most of the steam still goes out the stack.  What little 
goes down below just adds to the effect of the locomotive.  ; ]

Trot, the modifyable, fox...

|  /\_/\   TrotFox \ Always remember,
| ( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon\ "There is a
|  >\_/< [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ third alternative."



From: "JR May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

A few weeks ago at Pine Creek we had our Railroaders Weekend/Open House and
I set up some track for Ruby to run on in front of our machine shop.
Actually used the tender deck for our 1914 Porter which was an ideal 
height.
_
Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!  
http://msnmessenger-download.com

Re: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Alison and Jim Gregg]

t to fast as to greatly effect the pressure within.
To me this is the reason not to use soft solder, once it starts to soften 
and gives a little the drop of pressure coupled with the resulting 
increase in the amount of steam can cause an explosion even at a lower 
pressure.
For this reason I believe water level is a much more import than pressure, 
assuming a well working relief valve.  Don't get me wrong, pressure is 
important, and I don't think I'd want to run with a pressure gauge, but 
watching the sight gauge is much more import than watching the pressure gauge.

Ray Baughman
>
> From: Harry Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/10/06 Mon PM 12:20:44 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.
>
> At 05:57 PM 10/5/03 -0400, you wrote:
> >On the other hand, a well designed silver soldered boiler will build up a
> >very high pressure (probably more than 10 times operating pressure).
>
>In order for a theory to hold water all conditions, components, and
> influences on a system must be considered in proper proportion.  I agree
> the above scenario could happen, in fact possibly as much as 14 x WP, if
> there was a constant and unlimited source of heat, but what's being ignored
> is that this condition could not occur with a burner the size of a fat
> pencil.  There are simply not enough BTUs available to the system.  If I
> were to apply a 1" oxy/acetylene rose tip (150,000+BTU/min) to a Ga1 boiler
> boiler of course I should expect trouble, but in actual typical operation
> that's not going to occur.  The reason for building silver soldered boilers
> the way they have been, and should continue to be, is so that even a worst
> case scenario, where the boiler is dry and the burner is still on, a rather
> large margin of safety remains.  I fail to see what some people in the Ga1
> live steam hobby find so difficult and/or objectionable about that.
>
> >When this eventually leads to failure, the steam/water escapes much
> >more violently with parts being torn off and hurling through the air.
>
>  Unsubstantiated rhetoric like this can do a great deal of harm if read
> and repeated by or to the wrong person.  Rather than to conjur up disasters
> based upon incomplete and unrealistic physical scenarios, or constructing
> far-fetched justifications for doing it on the quick and cheap or
> indictments of doing it properly, I think the hobby would be much better
> served if that same energy were used to learn and promote good boiler
> building pratices.  I continue to be amazed how many people still fail to
> undersand that there is a direct connection between certain time-proven
> boiler building practices and safety, meaning that if good practices are
> used there is no further need for discussions or conjecture about what
> might happen in the event of a boil-dry.  We would, and do, know what would
> happen.  As for the actual dangers, historically then overwhelming majority
> of steam and boiler-related injuries are from scalds and burns and it's no
> different for us.
>
>  >The ultimate solution could be a well designed copper boiler with one or
> >two soft soldered melting plugs as "last chance safety valves".
>
> These are called "fusible plugs" and are being used by some folks in
> large scales but there is disagreement as to their advantages, if any, and
> whether they should be made mandatory.  But Ga1 boilers are a different
> animal and it's my opinion that the problems of using a fusible plug in a
> typical Ga1 boiler outweigh any benefits.  Ga1 boilers are a different
> animal because they are much less stable in operation than large scale
> boilers and fusible plugs rely to a great extent upon some degree of
> stability to do their job when it's called for and NOT do their job if it's
> not.  By "stable" I mean operating temperatures and pressures are lower
> than larger scales but fluctuate much more widely than in larger scales,
> water levels fluctuate much more widely, and only a very small percentage
> of locomotives have the firebox configuration required for a fusible plug,
> most don't have a firebox in the usual sense at all.  Fusible plugs rely
> upon plate temperature and water level to operate.  Also most Ga1 locos
> have fires which can be extinguished instantly in the event of low water,
> which is one important job done by a fusible plug, but in the event of low
> water nothing of much danger happens to a properly built Ga1 boiler anyway.
>
> Regards,
> Harry
>
>

Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Tag Gorton]

On 6/10/03 6:57 pm, "Harry Wade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At 09:21 PM 10/5/03 -0700, you wrote:
>> I'm thinking that maybe our engines are to small too really have a
> catastrophic explosion.
>> Chad
> 
>   I think smallness per se doesn't have so much to do with it as does
> the relative amount of energy available in the system but then I don't
> think I would agree unreservedly that a explosion wasn't possible.  Over
> the years I've read of many instances where old style water boilers, heavy
> riveted steel, which operated at 4-5psi, did explode in the fullest sense
> of the word, some with loss of life, so I couldn't ever say it couldn't
> happen.  I keep mentioning a "system" and by that I mean the matter capable
> of absorbing, storing, and giving off energy, the metal, steam, water,
> fuel, etc. and the influences that act upon those things.
>   Not from this one neccessarily, but I get the uneasy feeling there
> is sometimes the underlying implication that since we've had no boiler
> failures or accidents so far that indicates that current pratices are too
> stringent and unnecessary and if we backed off that there would be no loss
> of safety and also would  make things easier for a lot of people.  I hope
> that's not the case.  The reason for the record we enjoy is because we do
> things the way we do.


There has been lots of energy expended in writing about this subject on my
side of the pond lately due to the different interpretations of the latest
EEC Pressure Vessel Regulation.
Certainly I have never seen a boiler explosion in our sizes, but I have seen
a couple of failures.  I don't think a copper vessel of this size could
'explode' in the accepted sense of the word and the only failures I have
seen have been elderly brass boilers.  Even with these, the first symptom of
failure was a lack of performance rather than anything else.  The likely
point of failure on internally gas fired locomotives would be the weakest
point at the smokebox end where the heat is greatest and where the firetube
is closest to the outside of the boiler.
I don't think this is an issue with the vastly overengineered commercial
boilers in 16mm and G scales, and of more concern is the common habit of
using mixed butane/propane gas in pressure vessels designed for butane only.
This will happen more and more as neat butane gets harder to source.
My Cheddar locomotives have tanks designed for the easily available mixed
gas and I think this is the way to go for all manufacturers
-- 

Yours Aye

Tag Gorton
Longlands & Western Railway
Trematon Office
Saltash

Cornwall

Directors: T. Gorton, Madame E. Lash
 

Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Tag Gorton]

On 6/10/03 6:49 pm, "JR May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was not so much concerned about boiler safety as I was about Ruby spitting
> hot water out the stack.  We carried 2000 passengers that weekend and I'd
> guess half took the shop tour with many taking the time to check out Ruby
> pulling a seven car mixed train (with power to spare!).  Lots and lots of
> kids.  Before starting Ruby up, I'd have to clear the kids back a few feet
> to keep the hot water and oil spray off of them.


I have never had the chance to have a play with a Ruby, but certainly other
Accucraft locomotives are fairly easy to fit with a 'chuff' pipe because
they generally have an opening smokebox door.  Now my main intention is
actually to improve the sound of the chuff, but a by product of this is that
oily water is dropped between the frames onto the track rather than being
ejected out of the chimney and I don't have trouble with any of my
locomotives (of whatever provenance) spitting or ejecting boiling water over
people at exhibitions.
I reduce the height of the exhaust tube and slide a larger tube over.  The
end is sealed at just below the top of the smokestack and an 'organ pipe'
type slot is filed to exit steam/oil/water about 1/3 of the way up the
stack.
There are various detail changes one may make to the design.  The ones I fit
to Cheddar locomotives are filed to leave a thin reed across the slot.  But
in essence it is as simple as this.
-- 

Yours Aye

Tag Gorton
Longlands & Western Railway
Trematon Office
Saltash

Cornwall

Directors: T. Gorton, Madame E. Lash
 

Re: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Jim Burns]

"Diverters" come in several forms. The Berkley "Cricket" came supplied with
a curved, small brass tube, flared just enough to fit over the blower
(exhaust) tube. I made some larger ones from flexible "BX?" cable covers,
curved to direct the oil and water to the side of the loco. Made a couple
with different tapers to fit the differing smoke stack diameters. Don't use
when raising steam, only slip on when first valve movement clears the valves
and cylinders. Remove then and put in pocket to achieve "dirty" look of
engineer.
- Original Message -
From: "Geoff Spenceley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 7:50 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.


> That's a great point,  Steve,
>
> Thanks for bringing it up. It saves a lot of hot water and oil in the eye
> (and oil and crud on the Missuss's dress!) when firing most butane locos.
> However, it can't be done where  a blower or exhaust nozzzle is required
> such as  a coal or alky fired loco. Interestingly, with my two Merlin
> locos, (1985 and 1989) the exhaust tubes came  as you suggested except
that
> the tubes were slotted rather than drilled. I can't understand why all
> small loco builders don't do this. If done with imagination it can also
> produce a chuff sound.  Every Ruby owner should do this.
>
> I like your mistype "snoke box"--that's at excellent term for our small
locos!
>
> Geoff.
>
>
> Most users install a exhaust diverter in the snoke stack.  It is nothing
> >more than a larger tube with the end pinched off and holes drilled about
1/2
> >down from the top.  It has also been called a chuff tube.  Keeps the loco
> >cleaner and stops the spitting.
> >
> >Steve
>
>
>
>
>

 

RE: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Geoff Spenceley]

That's a great point,  Steve,

Thanks for bringing it up. It saves a lot of hot water and oil in the eye
(and oil and crud on the Missuss's dress!) when firing most butane locos.
However, it can't be done where  a blower or exhaust nozzzle is required
such as  a coal or alky fired loco. Interestingly, with my two Merlin
locos, (1985 and 1989) the exhaust tubes came  as you suggested except that
the tubes were slotted rather than drilled. I can't understand why all
small loco builders don't do this. If done with imagination it can also
produce a chuff sound.  Every Ruby owner should do this.

I like your mistype "snoke box"--that's at excellent term for our small locos!

Geoff.


Most users install a exhaust diverter in the snoke stack.  It is nothing
>more than a larger tube with the end pinched off and holes drilled about 1/2
>down from the top.  It has also been called a chuff tube.  Keeps the loco
>cleaner and stops the spitting.
>
>Steve



 

RE: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Ciambrone, Steve @ OS]

Most users install a exhaust diverter in the snoke stack.  It is nothing
more than a larger tube with the end pinched off and holes drilled about 1/2
down from the top.  It has also been called a chuff tube.  Keeps the loco
cleaner and stops the spitting.

Steve

> -Original Message-
> From: JR May [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:49 AM
> To:   Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
> Subject:  Re: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.
> 
> A few weeks ago at Pine Creek we had our Railroaders Weekend/Open House
> and
> I set up some track for Ruby to run on in front of our machine shop.
> Actually used the tender deck for our 1914 Porter which was an ideal
> height.
> 
> I was not so much concerned about boiler safety as I was about Ruby
> spitting
> hot water out the stack.  We carried 2000 passengers that weekend and I'd
> guess half took the shop tour with many taking the time to check out Ruby
> pulling a seven car mixed train (with power to spare!).  Lots and lots of
> kids.  Before starting Ruby up, I'd have to clear the kids back a few feet
> to keep the hot water and oil spray off of them.
> 
> At Diamond Head  and other public runs, is there a concern about the hot
> water tossed from the stack getting on kids?   In other words, its not so
> much a boiler failure (very rare) that is a concern to me but rather the
> normal water tossing nature of a steamer when its cold and first moving
> out
> (very common).  Seems like the operator has to be very aware of who is
> near
> him/her before starting out.
> 
> BTW, if anyone is interested I can email a picture of Ruby running that
> weekend.  Off hand I forget how many laps it ran, but it was two solid
> days,
> 11Am to 5PM with time off only for fuel and water.  The train was three
> LGB
> log cars (very nice cars too), two LGB 4 wheel flats with load, Bachman
> Ely-Thomas caboose, an 8 wheel coach of unknown make, and a LGB 8 wheel
> caboose.  Interestingly, the LGB caboose had coupler problems and was not
> used much.  The log cars were jewels and I would recommend them highly.
> The
> true link and pin works nicely and the long link I used between the first
> car and the engine gave me plenty of room for my big hands to reach in
> quickly and control the throttle on the fly. Seemed like the heavier the
> load the better the control was of the locomotive.It was a very short
> track and speed was critical.
> 
> Oh well, enough rambling.   I'll have a pressure gauge for next year for
> sure!  And a bigger track.
> 
> J.R.
> www.njmt.org
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.
> 
> 
> > I've been following this thread, and I'd like to put my two cents in.
> I've worked with full sized stationary steam engines, and thought I do not
> have my operator's license as yet, I'm planning to take the test some time
> in the not too distant future.
> >  First the fusible plugs primary job is not to extinguish the fire, but
> to
> notify the operator that a problem exist, and when it melts you'll know
> it.
> When the fusible plug melts, the first responsibility of the operator is
> to
> extinguish the fire.
> > To understand the dangers, one must first understand the why they occur.
> Two things to know about water and steam.  For every on pound of pressure
> in
> the system, the temperature required to create steam rises one degree
> Fahrenheit.  At just forty psi the temperature of the water and steam is
> well over 250 degree, and at 100 psi, its over 312 degree.  The second
> thing
> to know is that one cubic inch of water will produce over 1400 cubic
> inches
> of steam.
> > With this in mind, when water hits a dry heated crown plate, and
> instantly
> turns to steam, the pressure in the boiler raises drastically, the crown
> plate which is already too hot, is usually the first failed component,
> forcing the steam downward, as the failure occurs, pressure in the boiler
> drops drastically, as the pressure drops, the temperature required to turn
> water to steam decreases, causing the water in the boiler to turn to
> steam,
> again 1 cubic inch of water, produces over 1400 cubic inches of steam, and
> the boiler is history, and no longer setting where it was, this is the
> primary cause of steam explosions.  The biggest danger with a boiler is
> not
> the steam in it but the water within.  For this reason the fusible plug
> needs to be sized for the boiler, so as to allow steam to escape but to
>

Re: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Harry Wade]

At 03:04 PM 10/6/03 -0400, you wrote:
> First the fusible plugs primary job is not to extinguish the fire, but to
notify the operator that a problem exist
>Ray

 I agree when the boiler in question is full size, in which case the
free area of a fusible plug is a tiny fraction of the area of the grate,
however in typical large scale model practice the free area of a minumum
sized effective fusible plug is relatively large compared to the grate
area.  In the event of a low-water emergency the net effect of a release is
to extinguish the fire and rightly or wrongly those who use fusible plugs
in model boilers rely on it to do that.  Yes additional action, like
dumping a coal fire, will probably be taken but all this happens in an
instant and not all model locos have the ability to completely dump the
fire on short notice so in model practice the fusible plug, when present,
is thought of as a fire extinguisher rather than a warning device.  Those
without fusible plugs, and that would be the overwhelming majority of model
boilers, and those with fusible plugs who want to run without an extended
shut-down, rely upon a well maintained water gauge and feedwater pump or
injector and paying attention to business to avoid trouble.
   There is a wide difference of opinion (in the U.S. anyway) amongst
live steamers as to the benefits of fusible plugs in model boilers vs.
their drawbacks.  Some wouldn't be without them, some won't be bothered
them.  Neither camp can lay claim to be the lesser group of idiots so the
friendly exchange of opposing ideology continues without a definite
resolution.  Personally I haven't used fusible plugs in a large scale
boiler because those who I learned from didn't use them and/or it wasn't
requested that I do so but that doesn't prevent me from seeing they do have
their benefits.  However I think the case for fusible plugs gets much
stronger as scale, and boilers, gets larger and they are impractical in
typical Ga1 boilers.

Regards,
Harry
 

Re: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[JR May]

A few weeks ago at Pine Creek we had our Railroaders Weekend/Open House and
I set up some track for Ruby to run on in front of our machine shop.
Actually used the tender deck for our 1914 Porter which was an ideal height.

I was not so much concerned about boiler safety as I was about Ruby spitting
hot water out the stack.  We carried 2000 passengers that weekend and I'd
guess half took the shop tour with many taking the time to check out Ruby
pulling a seven car mixed train (with power to spare!).  Lots and lots of
kids.  Before starting Ruby up, I'd have to clear the kids back a few feet
to keep the hot water and oil spray off of them.

At Diamond Head  and other public runs, is there a concern about the hot
water tossed from the stack getting on kids?   In other words, its not so
much a boiler failure (very rare) that is a concern to me but rather the
normal water tossing nature of a steamer when its cold and first moving out
(very common).  Seems like the operator has to be very aware of who is near
him/her before starting out.

BTW, if anyone is interested I can email a picture of Ruby running that
weekend.  Off hand I forget how many laps it ran, but it was two solid days,
11Am to 5PM with time off only for fuel and water.  The train was three LGB
log cars (very nice cars too), two LGB 4 wheel flats with load, Bachman
Ely-Thomas caboose, an 8 wheel coach of unknown make, and a LGB 8 wheel
caboose.  Interestingly, the LGB caboose had coupler problems and was not
used much.  The log cars were jewels and I would recommend them highly.  The
true link and pin works nicely and the long link I used between the first
car and the engine gave me plenty of room for my big hands to reach in
quickly and control the throttle on the fly. Seemed like the heavier the
load the better the control was of the locomotive.It was a very short
track and speed was critical.

Oh well, enough rambling.   I'll have a pressure gauge for next year for
sure!  And a bigger track.

J.R.
www.njmt.org


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.


> I've been following this thread, and I'd like to put my two cents in.
I've worked with full sized stationary steam engines, and thought I do not
have my operator's license as yet, I'm planning to take the test some time
in the not too distant future.
>  First the fusible plugs primary job is not to extinguish the fire, but to
notify the operator that a problem exist, and when it melts you'll know it.
When the fusible plug melts, the first responsibility of the operator is to
extinguish the fire.
> To understand the dangers, one must first understand the why they occur.
Two things to know about water and steam.  For every on pound of pressure in
the system, the temperature required to create steam rises one degree
Fahrenheit.  At just forty psi the temperature of the water and steam is
well over 250 degree, and at 100 psi, its over 312 degree.  The second thing
to know is that one cubic inch of water will produce over 1400 cubic inches
of steam.
> With this in mind, when water hits a dry heated crown plate, and instantly
turns to steam, the pressure in the boiler raises drastically, the crown
plate which is already too hot, is usually the first failed component,
forcing the steam downward, as the failure occurs, pressure in the boiler
drops drastically, as the pressure drops, the temperature required to turn
water to steam decreases, causing the water in the boiler to turn to steam,
again 1 cubic inch of water, produces over 1400 cubic inches of steam, and
the boiler is history, and no longer setting where it was, this is the
primary cause of steam explosions.  The biggest danger with a boiler is not
the steam in it but the water within.  For this reason the fusible plug
needs to be sized for the boiler, so as to allow steam to escape but to fast
as to greatly effect the pressure within.
> To me this is the reason not to use soft solder, once it starts to soften
and gives a little the drop of pressure coupled with the resulting increase
in the amount of steam can cause an explosion even at a lower pressure.
> For this reason I believe water level is a much more import than pressure,
assuming a well working relief valve.  Don't get me wrong, pressure is
important, and I don't think I'd want to run with a pressure gauge, but
watching the sight gauge is much more import than watching the pressure
gauge.
>
> Ray Baughman
> >
> > From: Harry Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2003/10/06 Mon PM 12:20:44 EDT
> > To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.
> >
> > At 05:57 PM 10/5/03 -0400, you wrote:
> > >On the other hand,

Re: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[baughman]

I've been following this thread, and I'd like to put my two cents in.  I’ve worked 
with full sized stationary steam engines, and thought I do not have my operator’s 
license as yet, I’m planning to take the test some time in the not too distant future.
 First the fusible plugs primary job is not to extinguish the fire, but to notify the 
operator that a problem exist, and when it melts you’ll know it.  When the fusible 
plug melts, the first responsibility of the operator is to extinguish the fire.  
To understand the dangers, one must first understand the why they occur. Two things to 
know about water and steam.  For every on pound of pressure in the system, the 
temperature required to create steam rises one degree Fahrenheit.  At just forty psi 
the temperature of the water and steam is well over 250 degree, and at 100 psi, its 
over 312 degree.  The second thing to know is that one cubic inch of water will 
produce over 1400 cubic inches of steam.  
With this in mind, when water hits a dry heated crown plate, and instantly turns to 
steam, the pressure in the boiler raises drastically, the crown plate which is already 
too hot, is usually the first failed component, forcing the steam downward, as the 
failure occurs, pressure in the boiler drops drastically, as the pressure drops, the 
temperature required to turn water to steam decreases, causing the water in the boiler 
to turn to steam, again 1 cubic inch of water, produces over 1400 cubic inches of 
steam, and the boiler is history, and no longer setting where it was, this is the 
primary cause of steam explosions.  The biggest danger with a boiler is not the steam 
in it but the water within.  For this reason the fusible plug needs to be sized for 
the boiler, so as to allow steam to escape but to fast as to greatly effect the 
pressure within.
To me this is the reason not to use soft solder, once it starts to soften and gives a 
little the drop of pressure coupled with the resulting increase in the amount of steam 
can cause an explosion even at a lower pressure. 
For this reason I believe water level is a much more import than pressure, assuming a 
well working relief valve.  Don’t get me wrong, pressure is important, and I don’t 
think I’d want to run with a pressure gauge, but watching the sight gauge is much more 
import than watching the pressure gauge.

Ray Baughman
> 
> From: Harry Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/10/06 Mon PM 12:20:44 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.
> 
> At 05:57 PM 10/5/03 -0400, you wrote:
> >On the other hand, a well designed silver soldered boiler will build up a
> >very high pressure (probably more than 10 times operating pressure).
> 
>In order for a theory to hold water all conditions, components, and
> influences on a system must be considered in proper proportion.  I agree
> the above scenario could happen, in fact possibly as much as 14 x WP, if
> there was a constant and unlimited source of heat, but what's being ignored
> is that this condition could not occur with a burner the size of a fat
> pencil.  There are simply not enough BTUs available to the system.  If I
> were to apply a 1" oxy/acetylene rose tip (150,000+BTU/min) to a Ga1 boiler
> boiler of course I should expect trouble, but in actual typical operation
> that's not going to occur.  The reason for building silver soldered boilers
> the way they have been, and should continue to be, is so that even a worst
> case scenario, where the boiler is dry and the burner is still on, a rather
> large margin of safety remains.  I fail to see what some people in the Ga1
> live steam hobby find so difficult and/or objectionable about that.
> 
> >When this eventually leads to failure, the steam/water escapes much 
> >more violently with parts being torn off and hurling through the air.
> 
>  Unsubstantiated rhetoric like this can do a great deal of harm if read
> and repeated by or to the wrong person.  Rather than to conjur up disasters
> based upon incomplete and unrealistic physical scenarios, or constructing
> far-fetched justifications for doing it on the quick and cheap or
> indictments of doing it properly, I think the hobby would be much better
> served if that same energy were used to learn and promote good boiler
> building pratices.  I continue to be amazed how many people still fail to
> undersand that there is a direct connection between certain time-proven
> boiler building practices and safety, meaning that if good practices are
> used there is no further need for discussions or conjecture about what
> might happen in the event of a boil-dry.  We would, and do, know what would
> happen.  As for the actual dangers, historically then overwhelming majority
> of steam and boiler-related injuri

RE: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Harry Wade]

At 09:21 PM 10/5/03 -0700, you wrote:
>I'm thinking that maybe our engines are to small too really have a
catastrophic explosion.
>Chad

I think smallness per se doesn't have so much to do with it as does
the relative amount of energy available in the system but then I don't
think I would agree unreservedly that a explosion wasn't possible.  Over
the years I've read of many instances where old style water boilers, heavy
riveted steel, which operated at 4-5psi, did explode in the fullest sense
of the word, some with loss of life, so I couldn't ever say it couldn't
happen.  I keep mentioning a "system" and by that I mean the matter capable
of absorbing, storing, and giving off energy, the metal, steam, water,
fuel, etc. and the influences that act upon those things.
Not from this one neccessarily, but I get the uneasy feeling there
is sometimes the underlying implication that since we've had no boiler
failures or accidents so far that indicates that current pratices are too
stringent and unnecessary and if we backed off that there would be no loss
of safety and also would  make things easier for a lot of people.  I hope
that's not the case.  The reason for the record we enjoy is because we do
things the way we do.

Regards,
Harry
 

Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Harry Wade]

At 05:57 PM 10/5/03 -0400, you wrote:
>On the other hand, a well designed silver soldered boiler will build up a
>very high pressure (probably more than 10 times operating pressure).

   In order for a theory to hold water all conditions, components, and
influences on a system must be considered in proper proportion.  I agree
the above scenario could happen, in fact possibly as much as 14 x WP, if
there was a constant and unlimited source of heat, but what's being ignored
is that this condition could not occur with a burner the size of a fat
pencil.  There are simply not enough BTUs available to the system.  If I
were to apply a 1" oxy/acetylene rose tip (150,000+BTU/min) to a Ga1 boiler
boiler of course I should expect trouble, but in actual typical operation
that's not going to occur.  The reason for building silver soldered boilers
the way they have been, and should continue to be, is so that even a worst
case scenario, where the boiler is dry and the burner is still on, a rather
large margin of safety remains.  I fail to see what some people in the Ga1
live steam hobby find so difficult and/or objectionable about that.

>When this eventually leads to failure, the steam/water escapes much 
>more violently with parts being torn off and hurling through the air.

 Unsubstantiated rhetoric like this can do a great deal of harm if read
and repeated by or to the wrong person.  Rather than to conjur up disasters
based upon incomplete and unrealistic physical scenarios, or constructing
far-fetched justifications for doing it on the quick and cheap or
indictments of doing it properly, I think the hobby would be much better
served if that same energy were used to learn and promote good boiler
building pratices.  I continue to be amazed how many people still fail to
undersand that there is a direct connection between certain time-proven
boiler building practices and safety, meaning that if good practices are
used there is no further need for discussions or conjecture about what
might happen in the event of a boil-dry.  We would, and do, know what would
happen.  As for the actual dangers, historically then overwhelming majority
of steam and boiler-related injuries are from scalds and burns and it's no
different for us.

 >The ultimate solution could be a well designed copper boiler with one or
>two soft soldered melting plugs as "last chance safety valves".

These are called "fusible plugs" and are being used by some folks in
large scales but there is disagreement as to their advantages, if any, and
whether they should be made mandatory.  But Ga1 boilers are a different
animal and it's my opinion that the problems of using a fusible plug in a
typical Ga1 boiler outweigh any benefits.  Ga1 boilers are a different
animal because they are much less stable in operation than large scale
boilers and fusible plugs rely to a great extent upon some degree of
stability to do their job when it's called for and NOT do their job if it's
not.  By "stable" I mean operating temperatures and pressures are lower
than larger scales but fluctuate much more widely than in larger scales,
water levels fluctuate much more widely, and only a very small percentage
of locomotives have the firebox configuration required for a fusible plug,
most don't have a firebox in the usual sense at all.  Fusible plugs rely
upon plate temperature and water level to operate.  Also most Ga1 locos
have fires which can be extinguished instantly in the event of low water,
which is one important job done by a fusible plug, but in the event of low
water nothing of much danger happens to a properly built Ga1 boiler anyway.

Regards,
Harry
 

Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Vance Bass]

> I am surprised that Ruby comes with only a safety valve and no steam
> gauge. 

Well, then you think of it in a certain way, it does have a steam gauge.  The safety 
valve is a 
gauge, in that it tells you if your pressure is above or below a certain point.  This 
is just like on 
your car (unless you own a "performance" auto), where the trouble lights are off if 
everything is 
below a certain point and only go on when a threshhold condition is passed.  Most 
people don't 
care what their oil pressure is, as long as it's something the car's designers were 
happy with.

On problem with the Ruby is that the safety valves have been found to vary widely in 
the pop-off 
point.  They're pretty crude items, though, so getting a more sophisticated (and 
better calibrated) 
valve from a third party is probably a good idea.  Mike Chaney mentioned testing the 
valve while 
raising steam, and this is impossible with the Accucraft valve.  What is wanted is one 
with a stem 
that protrudes from the top, which you can grab with your pliers and tug on gently.  
This insures 
that it hasn't gotten stuck closed while the loco was sitting idle.

And, of course, you can buy a gauge for the Ruby if you want.  The "deluxe" model 
comes with it 
standard, but it's available as a retrofit from Accucraft.

regards,
  -vance-

Vance Bass
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Small-scale live steam resources: http://www.nmia.com/~vrbass
 

Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Harry Wade]

At 06:25 AM 10/6/03 -0400, you wrote:
>I am surprised that Ruby comes with only a safety valve and no steam gauge.

JR,
  The reason is cost/price.  The Ruby was intended to be a "budget"
locomotive and an additional safety and gauge would add at 20% to the
price.  Single safeties are common, and the gauge is the perfect
aftermarket item, and there are a lot of potential buyers who would be put
off by the extra 20% for what they might perceive as not being a
substantial additional value.

Regards,
Harry
 

Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[JR May]

I am surprised that Ruby comes with only a safety valve and no steam gauge.
Keeping an eye on the steam gauge would be the ideal way of ensuring you do
not have a problem.  That gives the operator at least two ways of knowing
what is going on with his boiler.


- Original Message -
From: "Mike Chaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: Boilers, Burners etc.


> Henner suggested:-
>
> > Let us assume, for some reason the safety valve fails:
>
> > Any comments ?
>
> The answer is make sure it fails "safe".  My solution is to fit the safety
valve
> with a test pin (normally known as the valve stem) and lift it to make
sure the
> ball is free whilst raising steam.  I also advise owners of my engines to
do
> this with the words:- "A wise engineer will check the safety valve in this
way
> each time the locomotive is steamed from cold."
>
> Mike Chaney
>
>
>
>
>
 

Re: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Mike Chaney]

Henner suggested:-

> Let us assume, for some reason the safety valve fails:

> Any comments ?

The answer is make sure it fails "safe".  My solution is to fit the safety valve
with a test pin (normally known as the valve stem) and lift it to make sure the
ball is free whilst raising steam.  I also advise owners of my engines to do
this with the words:- "A wise engineer will check the safety valve in this way
each time the locomotive is steamed from cold."

Mike Chaney

 

RE: Boilers, Burners etc.

[Chad R Schend]

I had a plug on the back of my C-16 blow at 60psi when I was bench testing
the engine. The bolt hit me in the chest and didn't really hurt even though
it left a bruise. The water that came out was luke warm and not as hot as I
would have thought. The plug was located toward the top of the boiler on the
backhead. The engine was about 50% full so there was steam but the water
came out at the same time. I'm thinking that maybe our engines are to small
to really have a catastrophic explosion.
Chad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Henner Meinhold
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 2:58 PM
To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
Subject: Boilers, Burners etc.


Hi,
here some of my thoughts about boilers, burners and HO Live Steamers

#1 Boilers:
Having read the thread about the Midwest boiler I would like to present
some heretic thoughts:

So far I have built three silver soldered vertical copper boilers with
nicely flanged plates and pressure tested
to at least 2..3 times operating pressure.  They are equipped with safety
valves and additional silicon tubing
between the boiler and the steam engine, acting as another safety device.

But I am not sure anymore, if this is the right way to go,  at least for
very small boilers. The reason:

In  Model Engineer I read several articles about boiler failure. Once a
leak develops, the pressure in the
boiler drops slightly, developing more steam. The more or less constant
pressure behind the leak causes the
rupture to propagate with disastrous results. The whole system now acts as
a steam rocket. In fact,
exploding boilers have been known to "travel" several  blocks.

In our small boilers we have different conditions: The small amount of
water/steam together with the small
dimensions is not sufficient to start the propagation of the rupture. The
water/steam will simply escape until
the boiler is dry. Of course, the effect of hot steam and some reaction
force trying to propel the boiler are
still to be considered as a safety hazard. But the bottom line is: A small
boiler does not "explode".

Now back to boiler design:
Let us assume, for some reason the safety valve fails:
The Midwest boiler is a fairly flimsy design, which should fail at low
pressures. One of the solder joints
might open up, releasing steam/water at reasonably low pressure and thats
it.
On the other hand, a well designed silver soldered boiler will build up a
very high pressure (probably more
than 10 times operating pressure). When this eventually leads to failure,
the steam/water escapes much
more violently with parts being torn off and hurling through the air. So
the "explosion" of a well built
boiler may be more disastrous than the failure of a flimsy one.

The ultimate solution could be a well designed copper boiler with one or
two soft soldered melting plugs as
"last chance safety valves".

Any comments ?

#2 Alcohol burners:
My suggestion is to use silver soldered joints everywhere. In case of an
alcohol spill the last thing you want to happen is one of the joints to
open up. Brass tanks can easily be silver soldered (e.g. with Easyflow or
an equivalent solder with a 617C -1143F melting temp.) without any
distortion - photos on request. I use the swiss precision shear/bending
brake now carried by MicroMark for all my sheet metal work. For tanks I
make 2 U-shaped parts which can be put together with a slight press fit,
secured with some bailing wire and soldered. It takes less than 1/2h to
make a perfect tank !

#3 HO and smaller live steamers.
Moeller in Germany sold electrically heated HO live steamers (a 0-8-0 tank
and a 2-10-0 ) for several years. The heater was in the boiler and they
even had Walschaerts gear. An Australian by the name of Sherwood built even
smaller steamers with tiny butane burners, less than Z-gauge !
Links/schematics on request.

As I am out of town Mo. ..Fr., I can respond only on weekends, apart from
off-line mail.

Regards
Henner



 

Re: Boilers

[Jonathan Bloom]

>  This leads me to another thought I had lately, which is that of the
> areas of our hobby that present potential problems, it seems to me fueling
> and firing activities, and the construction of fueling components, present
> a much greater potential for damage and injury than do boilers.

Good point Harry.  I've seen alot more track fires and singed eyebrows than
blown boilers.  And those mixed-gas users leaving butane designed tanks in
direct sun light.  Lots more pressure problem potential there than in a
boiler, hey?
 

Re: Boilers

[Harry Wade]

At 12:17 PM 8/21/01 -0400, you wrote:
>I can tell you that they start to smell like roasting electronics when the
>water gets too low...  I shut it down then, it had been running out of
>power and I couldn't figure out why turning up the heat made little
>difference.  Oh but if I had years more experience!  ;]

 Re Low water . . . . . I have a slightly modified black Pannier which
I just love to run it because it runs so good.  Despite my unabashed
affection for it, my practice, which flies in the face of the conventional
wisdom spouted by the current gurus of the hobby as the Accepted Rules for
Steaming Up, is to fill it completely full to brimming with fluids (water,
oil, spirits) and run it until one of them is completely used up; that's
invariably the water.  In that instance having a full charge of steam in
the boiler is as good as having water.  The heat is absorbed in
superheating the remaining steam.  Remember our thread a while back on
"zippiness" in locomotives?  That's when my version of 'zippiness" occurs,
just as the last drops of water and boiler full of steam is taking on
superheat from the burner.  Throttled back the Pannier will kick its heels
for 1-2 track circuits on that last superheated charge, but the moment that
charge is exhausted the trouble can begin because there is nothing left to
absorbe the heat but the loco itself.
My practice is to avoid overheating by pre-shutting down the fuel feed
shortly before the water is used up and before arriving at steam only left
in the boiler.  (Yes, unfortunately, that involves actually "driving" the
loco and tending to its needs.)  I had one near-miss when I forgit to
pre-shut down the fuel and the fire extinguisher I'd been borrowing had
been packed away, but other than that I've been running it in this way and
it hasn't been hurt it in the least.   BUT the last thing in the world I'd
want to do is endanger my loco so when I have fire I always take care to
have two other things present: something in the boiler to absorbe the heat
(water or steam), and movement (or blower).   Otherwise i'm inviting
bar-b-que'd loco.
 This leads me to another thought I had lately, which is that of the
areas of our hobby that present potential problems, it seems to me fueling
and firing activities, and the construction of fueling components, present
a much greater potential for damage and injury than do boilers.

Cheers,
Harry 

Re: Boilers

[trotfox]

I can tell you that they start to smell like roasting electronics when the
water gets too low...  I shut it down then, it had been running out of
power and I couldn't figure out why turning up the heat made little
difference.  Oh but if I had years more experience!  ;]

Not helpful, but I won't forget that part of the steamup process again!
=)

Trot, the hot-fingered, fox...

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Harry Wade wrote:

> At 10:55 AM 8/20/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >Now for your next act maybe a display showing the results of destructive
> >tests performed on  2" x 8" center flue butane boilers.  One that the safety
> >didn't work, another that the boiler was run dry
> >Jim
>
> Re your second suggestion, I predict the outcome of that one.  If a
> boiler can be run dry, meaning all available water converted to steam, that
> implies there is an escape route for the steam.  If there's no more water
> to turn to steam, and the escape route remains open, there can be no danger
> or damage from accumulated pressure.  The problem in that case would be
> excess heat which would affect paint, radio gear, washers, o-rings,
> gaskets, soft solder construction, white metal fittings, and fingers.  The
> basic boiler structure would be essentially unaffected.
>
> Cheers,
> Harry


 /\_/\TrotFox\ Always remember,
( o o )  AKA Landon Solomon   \ "There is a
 >\./< [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ third alternative."
 

Re: Boilers

[Harry Wade]

At 10:55 AM 8/20/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Now for your next act maybe a display showing the results of destructive
>tests performed on  2" x 8" center flue butane boilers.  One that the safety
>didn't work, another that the boiler was run dry
>Jim

Re your second suggestion, I predict the outcome of that one.  If a
boiler can be run dry, meaning all available water converted to steam, that
implies there is an escape route for the steam.  If there's no more water
to turn to steam, and the escape route remains open, there can be no danger
or damage from accumulated pressure.  The problem in that case would be
excess heat which would affect paint, radio gear, washers, o-rings,
gaskets, soft solder construction, white metal fittings, and fingers.  The
basic boiler structure would be essentially unaffected.

Cheers,
Harry 

Re: Boilers

[Trent Dowler]

Bob,

   The way I discovered my safety being stuck was that I had no condensate
"weeping" through the safety as I normally do. A slight tug on the center pin
(not the stock safety obviously) set it free with a good blast of steam. (And it
looked Cool!, all safety considerations aside.)
   Now the safety is the first thing I check with a little tug on the center pin.
During the steamup process I watch for condensate weeping from the top of the
safety.
   Thought it might help someone else detect a stuck safety before it created
problems.

Later,
Trent


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I recently had trouble with my safety on my Ruby, stuck real good
 

Re: Boilers

[Cgnr]

I recently had trouble with my safety on my Ruby, stuck real good when I 
wasn't paying attention.  I imagine that it got up to a pretty good pressure; 
but all that happened is the O-ring under the fill cap gave out.  Generally 
speaking, I think that something other than the boiler shell itself will give 
out.
If you folks are interested, here is a progress picture of my upgrade to my 
Ruby.  Still have a long way to go, for all that I want to do.

Bob  

Re: Boilers

[Harry Wade]

At 04:57 PM 8/20/01 EDT, you wrote:
>Harry,
>What would you predict the results would be if the boiler was very hot, 
>almost dry, and water was introduced? This was the apparent reason for the 
>traction engine failure recently resulting in loss of life. Obviously size
is 
>of great importance here.
>Walt & Lunk 

 Yes size is of importance, but with regard to the Ohio case despite
official reports there is still a great deal of speculation and
misinformation about what actually happened there, and there are well
respected authorities on boiler design and behavior as well as historical
empirical data which contends that for reasons having to do with the laws
of thermodynamics overpressuring due to flash steam could not have been
sufficient cause as has been widely reported.  Convenient, but not
conclusive.  I don't speculate one way or another because I don't know
enough about any of the circumstances to say but it is safe to say that
like so many other mishaps a number of factors contributed to the accident
which individually were unlikely to have caused it.
 As we all should know by now the amount of heat needed to turn water
to steam rises as the pressure rises.   At one atmosphere the boiling point
of water is 212 deg F.  At 60 psi it's 307 deg F. (153 C.)In an
overheated or stuck valve condition in one of our boilers the pressure will
reach a point where the burner in incapable of adding enough heat to the
system to turn any more water to steam.  Thus it has reached thermal
equilibrium, in my guess below the critical point of the boiler, and will
sit there and sizzle, as I mentioned in my earlier post, but I don't know
where that equilibrium point is.
To answer your question, I have no prediction because I don't know.  My
guess would be that there would be a momentary increase in pressure,
probably large on a % of WP (working pressure) basis, but essentially then,
nothing.  However while the boiler was being run dry the shell was busy
taking on a great deal of additional heat which when presented with a
little more water could indeed flash into enough pressure to be
destructive.  I guess we're just going to have to try it and see.
 I suppose I should add this qualification, which is that all of this
assumes that fittings, closures, gauges (if included), etc., are not the
source of a failure.   Naturally our fittings, such as water gauges, aren't
intended to withstand these conditions and so could not be considered a
'failure".  Bushings on the other hand must be capable of withstanding as
much if not more pressure than the basic boiler shell.

Cheers,
Harry 

RE: Boilers

[Geoff Waldorf]

Just a question from the side, how would you get enough water into one of
our type of boilers, I can see possibly how on a traction engine but not our
type, there is no where for the water to lodge! must go ,It's 22.13 here.
best regards
  Geoff Waldorf

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20 August 2001 21:58
To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
Subject: Re: Boilers


Harry,
What would you predict the results would be if the boiler was very hot,
almost dry, and water was introduced? This was the apparent reason for the
traction engine failure recently resulting in loss of life. Obviously size
is
of great importance here.
Keep your steam up!
Walt & Lunk
 

Re: Boilers

[WaltSwartz]

Harry,
What would you predict the results would be if the boiler was very hot, 
almost dry, and water was introduced? This was the apparent reason for the 
traction engine failure recently resulting in loss of life. Obviously size is 
of great importance here.
Keep your steam up!
Walt & Lunk 

RE: Boilers

[Harry Wade]

At 06:03 PM 8/20/01 +0100, you wrote:
>In the UK we have to have any boiler with a working pressure of 30psi
>& over, & a capacity of over 1 UK pint tested every two years for our public
>liability insurance,

Small scale live steamers should be aware that in the U.S. many
(but not all) state boiler codes (laws), most of which are based either
entirely or in part upon the A.S.M.E. Standards for Pressure Vessels,
contain clauses which exclude boilers below a certain volume or grate area
from compliance with state regulation or having to be built to "code"
standards.  (A copper boiler cannot be "code" no matter how it's built.)
The majority of these exclusions were negotiated by large scale live steam
clubs to make running miniature (read "model") boilers legal.  (The
A.S.M.E. definition of "miniature boiler" and our meaning of the term are
different.)  Those model boilers which can be built to "code" (steel) are,
those which can't (copper) are in most cases excluded.Based upon
this, garden gauge boilers in the U.S. will almost certainly be excluded
and there is not as yet, as far as I know, a hard connection between
testing and certification and insurability in the U.S.  There will probably
come a time when changes in our society will force more strict and
comprehensive regulation upon us, but for the moment we have our cake and
can eat it too, that is why some of us feel it's important to preserve our
record of 100% safety.

Cheers,
Harry 

Re: Boilers

[Harry Wade]

At 10:55 AM 8/20/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Now for your next act maybe a display showing the results of destructive
>tests performed on  2" x 8" center flue butane boilers.  One that the safety
>didn't work, another that the boiler was run dry
>Jim

Jim,
  As much as I enjoy engaging in unneccessary theatrics, and as much of
a crowd pleaser as it sounds like, I'm afraid the results would be
disappointing (as just now alluded to by Geoff Waldorf).  This same sort of
test has been done here with similar results.  If I were to take the
average Ga1 boiler, say 2" x 8" and 16ga (.062"/1.5mm +/-) copper all
around, fill it to brimming with water, and set to it with an oxy/acetylene
torch, eventually I could create some excitement, but the reality of course
is that we hardly use enough fire to scorch the end of a medium sized
cigar.  COAL fires are a different matter altogether so we need to be
careful not to assume that the behavior and effects of coal fires will eb
the same as spirit or gas firing.
  I feel that in order for test or demonstration of this kind to have
any validity and carry weight it must be realistic in both design and
presentation.  Of course we could demonstrate the dangers inherent in a Ga1
boiler by heating it with a virtually unlimited heat source, such as an
oxy/acetylene torch, but how many of us fire with oxy/acetylene (only one
or two that I know of :-).  My feeling is that as long as the heat source
is limited, such as ours are, the potential for outright failure of an
otherwise sound boiler is limited.  To conduct unrealistic tests and then
publicize the results, such as an exploded Ga1 boiler, exploded only
because it was heated to incandescence with oxy/acetyl, would do us far
more harm than good.   
   A realistic test would be to take a typical Ga1 boiler, filled to
operating level, and using a typical Ga1 burner, either gas or spirits,
fire up, and watch what happens.  My own guess (and this is a guess) . . .
nothing, because the ability of copper to absorb and conduct heat away from
its source exceeds the ability of our burners to add sufficient heat to the
system to bring it to near critical temperature.  Critical temperature
would mean the point at which either the silver solder or the copper would
lose its strength causing a joint failure.   IMHO the temperature of the
vessel and pressure, at a given firing rate, would reach an equalibrium and
beyond that point it would just sit there and sizzle.  I am not prepared to
venture a guess as to what pressures might be developed in such a test.  It
would be interesting to find out.

Cheers,
Harry 

RE: Boilers

[Geoff Waldorf]

Dear All,
this sort of test has been carried out by Cheddar Models on one of the
marine boilers which is about the same volume, all that happened was that
the flu tube went phu! & distorted as I understand it, basically no big
deal!. In the UK we have to have any boiler with a working pressure of 30psi
& over, & a capacity of over 1 UK pint tested every two years for our public
liability insurance, That includes the safety valve. I understand that small
steam loco's in the UK don't have a requirement for testing, Also our marine
refillable gas tanks have to be tested with the same frequency which I think
is a nonsense as our marine gas tanks are built like brick privies (or
outside john's to you guys across the pond) I just thought this might be of
some interest to you all.
Best regards
   Geoff Waldorf Chairman, Cheddar Steam Club
www.cheddar-steam-club.co.uk



  May I suggest that you do that particular demo out in the open lot between
the
DH bowling alley and the nightclub across the parking lot. I think I have
plans
during that time and won't be able to attend. 

Later,
Trent

Jim Curry wrote:

> Harry:
>
> Now for your next act maybe a display showing the results of destructive
> tests performed on  2" x 8" center flue butane boilers.  One that the
safety
> didn't work, another that the boiler was run dry

 

Re: Boilers

[Trent Dowler]

Jim,

   I like that idea better now. 
   It would certainly show the importance of a properly built, maintained, and
operated boiler.

Later,
Trent

Jim Curry wrote:

> I didn't mean it as a demo.  I suggested he bring the results of the tests
> for show and tell.
 

Re: Boilers

[Jim Curry]

I didn't mean it as a demo.  I suggested he bring the results of the tests
for show and tell.

Jim
 

Re: Boilers

[Trent Dowler]

  May I suggest that you do that particular demo out in the open lot between the
DH bowling alley and the nightclub across the parking lot. I think I have plans
during that time and won't be able to attend. 

Later,
Trent

Jim Curry wrote:

> Harry:
>
> Now for your next act maybe a display showing the results of destructive
> tests performed on  2" x 8" center flue butane boilers.  One that the safety
> didn't work, another that the boiler was run dry
 

Re: Boilers

[Jim Curry]

Harry:

Now for your next act maybe a display showing the results of destructive
tests performed on  2" x 8" center flue butane boilers.  One that the safety
didn't work, another that the boiler was run dry

Jim