Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Sardine Can 2

Expand Messages
  • kragmeister
    Greetings, I decided to try a different coil motor design in another sardine can. Instead of 5 loops of brass tubing I used 2 loops and had the pipes exit the
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings,

      I decided to try a different coil motor design in another sardine can. Instead of 5 loops of brass tubing I used 2 loops and had the pipes exit the bottom of the hull and run to the stern. My thinking was that a smaller heating surface would create quicker pulses and the longer exit tubes under the hull would cool quicker creating a faster vacuum.

      Well, it did not work as well, it was much slower than the first sardine can. When I introduced some air to the system on Can 2 it ran really fast until all of the gas was displaced by water. I'm thinking that the larger heating surface would have been better. Photos are in the photos section under "Sardine Can" as can2.jpg and can2a.jpg.

      Later,
      Greg
    • epikflyer
      Hi Greg. Perhaps the pipe being submersed is having a cooling effect in either the water being sucked into the boiler, thereby taking longer to flash, or the
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Greg.

        Perhaps the pipe being submersed is having a cooling effect in either the water being sucked into the boiler, thereby taking longer to flash, or the exhaust cycle is slowed by the gases cooling faster and reducing the velocity slightly as it travels out of the pipe resulting in performance decrease. Or possibly both. I don't know, just a thought.

        Cheers.

        Tim

        --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "kragmeister" <kragmeister@...> wrote:
        >
        > Greetings,
        >
        > I decided to try a different coil motor design in another sardine can. Instead of 5 loops of brass tubing I used 2 loops and had the pipes exit the bottom of the hull and run to the stern. My thinking was that a smaller heating surface would create quicker pulses and the longer exit tubes under the hull would cool quicker creating a faster vacuum.
        >
        > Well, it did not work as well, it was much slower than the first sardine can. When I introduced some air to the system on Can 2 it ran really fast until all of the gas was displaced by water. I'm thinking that the larger heating surface would have been better. Photos are in the photos section under "Sardine Can" as can2.jpg and can2a.jpg.
        >
        > Later,
        > Greg
        >
      • frankmcneilll
        Congratulations Greg, What you seem to have found is an ubiquitous test hull for standardized testing of motors of different types, sizes and heating
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Congratulations Greg,

          What you seem to have found is an ubiquitous test hull for standardized testing of motors of different types, sizes and heating provisions. Nice example of serendipity in action!

          Old Frank



          --- In pop-pop-steamboats@yahoogroups.com, "kragmeister" <kragmeister@...> wrote:
          >
          > Greetings,
          >
          > I decided to try a different coil motor design in another sardine can. Instead of 5 loops of brass tubing I used 2 loops and had the pipes exit the bottom of the hull and run to the stern. My thinking was that a smaller heating surface would create quicker pulses and the longer exit tubes under the hull would cool quicker creating a faster vacuum.
          >
          > Well, it did not work as well, it was much slower than the first sardine can. When I introduced some air to the system on Can 2 it ran really fast until all of the gas was displaced by water. I'm thinking that the larger heating surface would have been better. Photos are in the photos section under "Sardine Can" as can2.jpg and can2a.jpg.
          >
          > Later,
          > Greg
          >
        • David Halfpenny
          ... From: epikflyer Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 5:31 PM ... It might help people think about it to remark that the pop motor
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --------------------------------------------------
            From: "epikflyer" <p-40.av8r@...>
            Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 5:31 PM

            > Perhaps the pipe being submersed is having a cooling effect in either the
            > water being sucked into the boiler, thereby taking longer to flash, or
            > the exhaust cycle is slowed by the gases cooling faster and reducing the
            > velocity slightly as it travels out of the pipe resulting in performance
            > decrease. Or possibly both. I don't know, just a thought.
            >
            It might help people think about it to remark that the pop motor contains a
            bubble of air mixed with steam

            Part of what is going on is a resonance of the water columns bouncing on
            the bubble, part is that the bubble is constantly varying in size, and part
            is that we have no control over (or indeed awareness of) the air and how it
            changes things.

            David 1/2d
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.