Pellet Powered Tranportation, conversion

I'm assuming that by "Pellet driven" you mean wood pellets and some sort of combustion chamber that creates the steam. If so, I can reference you to the Stirling engine and the drawbacks that has in variable speed applications, or the standard steam engine (which has the same issues).

If you mean pellet hydrogen production, you still have issues with volume, compression and ppcm to feed either a PEM Membrane generator or a Hydrogen ICE model.

I'd like a little more information as to your premise. The better the data, the better the answer.

Love new ideas so 'LETS VETT'

BTW, I'd like an aftermarket device that would perform the functions of my ex wife, minus the financial rape. Just a thought....

Lynx Steam Engines does conversions of IC engines to steam, best to convert diesel. Green Steam Engines will sell plans/parts to a very unique design. Cyclone is building engines. You can get plans for building a Tesla Turbine that would get high rpm. The Lysholm expander [a reversed turbocharger] is a possible choice. You might even contract with a good machine shop to build a uniflow piston engine. Each one has its points.

A bottle full of high pressure steam is less efficient and more dangerous [explosionwise] than the very safe water tube boiler. The most efficient boiler design is the Lamont boiler. Since the tubes are the part under pressure and they are contained inside the firebox, a burst tube just goes out the exhaust. If you check out the size of the boiler used in a Doble Steam car, a Lamont boiler can be about half that size, about as big as a round hatbox. There is a formula dealing with surface area and steam production that I once saw, but have forgotten, which may preclude the type of boiler you envision.

Use the steam engine of choice to run a generator which charges the batteries. At home just plug it in to recharge or let it run until the batteries are charged. Then you can run out the door, turn the key and drive while the steam engine takes its time to get going. The batteries run electric motors to drive the vehicle. Using wood pellets as fuel rather than a liquid or gas does add some weight and complexity. Running a stationary steam engine to make electricity, heat your home and make hot water is more suitable for using pellet fuel since size and weight and complexity are not critical. I am not opposed to it, just pointing out that it would be more difficult. Starting the burner would also present a problem. Once started would it burn constantly or be able to go off and on rapidly as needed? The car could be used as emergency power for your home too.

I have done a lot of research on this and need to do more, but what I have seen shows that steam power is more efficient than internal combustion and has less emissions, even using fossil fuels, than IC engines. Would like to discuss further as I have with Shadetree - beesidemeusa@yahoo.co.uk

Hmmm, cool. I hadn't looked for, found by accident or seen any of these concepts (for the past 100 year or so, anyway). I can't see heating water to make steam by using an external power source as efficient - Conservation of energy laws...the more changes of state or form the more power lost <paraphrase>. You canna change the laws of physics (bad scotish accent - Scotty).

I think that burning anything or creating energy out of something that polutes is kind of useless. Hell, I can get energy by enslaving people, chaining theim to a rotating shaft and having them walk in a circle, but I think the goal here is to use non-poluting, renewable sources that have little to no effluent output. Do you know how much crap (literal) that is going to come out of a bunch of slaves that have to walk in a circle all day. Plus the body disposal issues :PThe Tesla turbine might have some legs, as I'm assuming it's a DC engine. I know, just like the VHS/Beta wars, the lesser technlogy won out so we have AC everywhere just like we had VHS

The rest are just novelty machines. Easily possible but have no inherent fuel or power advantages and are usually more expensive.

Here's some links Taganan is refering to:

http://www.lynxsteamengines.com/

http://www.steamautomobile.com/northea/lamont.html

There are losses involved the various conversions & transformations, The advantages are related to the high efficency & controlled nature of the combustion, The emmissions will be very minimal.

An opitimal boiler would run on multiple feedstocks. Coupled with a steam electric hybred unlimited versitility & range.

I'm hoping to spark some public discussion of various methods & technologies.

Please feel free to expand you comments/observations, to bring steam power to the CR4 audience!

Steam has always been viable, $100/barrel oil makes the return on investment [ROI] better. The Juice is worth the Squeeze!

OK! OK! OK! I get it. The flash tube boiler is more efficient. What I was trying for, however, is a compromise between the flash tube (which has a tendancy to burnout due to the lack of wall thickness) and the tank boiler (which has the capacity to explode).

Now on to the pellets vs. liquid fuel. This addresses two concerns of mine. The first is the volatility of liquid fuels. It's amazing that we think nothing of riding around on a potential bomb. The second factor is, amazingly, an environmental issue. I live in the Great Northwest. Every year we have forest fires to worry about. This is brought about to some extent by the amount of fuel load; ie dried out underbrush, fallen trees etc. that accumulates on the forest floor. Much or this could be harvested and turned into pellets, thus reducing the fire danger.

Interesting. going to do a little digging and get back to this, but I don't know if scavenged forest detritus would be an economically viable option for mass production, but for a limited number, it should be doable.

As for exploding fuel, think Challenger...I watched that one go up live from Orlando...not a good day. All of us Navy guys were standing around going "Was it supposed to do that?" Talk about strapping a bomb to your ass. I get your point, but when was the last time you actually heard of a car exploding? That's mostly a TV thing. Burning happens, but even that is a rarity in an accident.

Can you say Pinto?

Most older pickups, had the gas tank behind the seat & while they might not actually explode..............

getting covered in fuel, could be viewed as a safety hazard.

Doing responsible thinning of the forest, could provide lots of material

The question is the economic viaibility of the practice & taking a longer view of the allocation of resources [$'s].

If you build it they will come. What I mean is; before the advent of the gasoline powered auto not many drilled for oil. Before the lightbulb not much electricity was generated. There is a chicken vs. egg scenario in most of the advances made in the past. This is also a good place to put government subsidies to work.

I agree

we are already paying huge amounts of money to put out fires, we could spend that money premptivly and prevent the fires & increase the health of the forest eco systems. The logistics of producing & moving the pellets, could be a nice little green industry. Some investment private, public or governmental, will need to be made.

In my area pellets were in very short supply this past winter, the price skyrocketed!

Link to some interesting comments by esbuck http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/17154?frmtrk=cr4sd

There are some environmentalist issues with removing forrest detrious...But I'm all for burning the environmentalists as fuel too. It's one of the reasons we're having so many problems with forest fires...court orders that are preventing us from actually properly managing the forests. Do I hear a vote for actually chaining them to trees...preferably in the path of forest fires?

At least no compression phase would be necessary using steam. Or Compressed air for that matter. Since you're already going to have a pressure vessel onboard, compressed air would elimiate the firebox (glowing embers all around you in a crash would not be a bonus either - unless you carried around fava beans <evil grin>. I think the steam power would be better off on a less mobile application, but hell, it could still run a generator. And the steam version could run off any sort of cellulose waste produce. You will have soot and ash issues. And you're technically still burning hydrocarbons, even if you toss he odd environmentalist in the combustion chamber. Just not fossil fuels, so you're renewablility and sustainability is greatly increased.

It might have the same problems as biofuels though, in regards to land use competition. It could only be part of the solution, but not a bad one.

I'm with you on the enviromentalist (heavy on the mental) theme. There is some very poor science there, more like a religion (worship of Giaha - the earth mother). They tend to step over a dollar to save a dime, just like the beaurocrats they get into government spaces. It's interesting to find out who is putting our tax dollars to work.

A lot of that Pinto and truck fires in accidents was faked by the TV programs. When the vehicles just would not burst into flames in staged collisions they used incendiaries to light them off.

2 high school girls, in my hometown burned to death, when their Pinto broke down on a limited access road, with very tall curbs & no shoulders. a van rear ended them & while the car didn't explode the subsequent fire left them severly burned, they perished from their injuries w/in hours, this was in the late 70's.

I've owned a 65 chevy pickup, with the gas tank behind the seat, though I never had an issue, it always struck me as a hazard.

Actually, more often than need be.

See:-http://www.car-accidents.com/car-fire-crash-burn.html

For cars, Diesel powered ones are a lot less likely to start burning and even if they do burn, there is a much lower chance of an explosion, due to the relatively high temperature of the diesel flashpoint against the very low one of petrol....

One should still never say "never", but combined with the diesel's economy, they are a far better bet.....which is why I drive Diesels since the 1980s.....

The location of the fuel tank plays a large role in safety, any tank should be in front or above the rear axle, not behind!! Check this point out before buying a vehicle....

In the USA many years ago, a lot of (Ford?) trucks were made with the tank outside of the "frame" and a lot of people got burned.....similar problem......

remember, a "squashed" tank of petrol just explodes sending burning petrol everywhere......

I see a problem with just using the head of the existing engine to valve the steam to the cylinders.

1. the valve springs are too weak to close the intake valves when the manifold pressure is 100-150 pounds.

2. The piston rings will leak the condensate into the crankcase and make the oil into a gooey mess.

3. There is no provision on a IC engine to allow steam to flow through the cylinders to preheat them to prevent a water block on the first revolution of a cold engine.

For a few years I have been working on a replacement head for IC engines that would give you a replacement with a cylinder that would be double acting and use the lower end of any IC engine without contamination of the crankcase and still allow you to use the basic block as it was manufactured without a major tear-down of the existing engine. Just remove the head or heads and install the conversion unit. Add a boiler and go.

For the use of the vehicle you might try a gasification unit with a tar trap to run the IC engine on anything that can be burned. IE your waste from the logging runs.

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes those are conciderations I had thought of. I think, however, as far as the valving is concerned you may be missing the big picture. If we were considering a one cylinder engine your scenario might have legs. Because we are talking multiple cylinders it's a non-issue. The steam will go to the first opening it can. Since we have modified our theoretical engine to two stroke via the camshaft there should be no problem with a waterlock.

There is the problem of water in the oil and vice/versa. Perhaps graphite pistons and or overlappings would help. One could also go so far as to install roller bearings at crank and rods. Details to be ironed out.

There are plenty on thinning practices which the enviro crowd will accept. Thinning helps make the forest healthier, but there's no money in small trees & pulp. The production of pellets could be an economically viable way to thin.

Air power is a joke for mobile sources, [check the link I posted above].

Everything is always a joke, like light bulbs, horseless carriages, airplanes, before they exist. I don't see a pellet car on the market either, but never said it wasn't possible.

There are a couple of prototype engines that are actually practical, abet still premature.

http://www.engineair.com.au/airmotor.htm

http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/EProductQT600SCPneumatic.htm

The Engineair model still has a few bugs to work out, but the quasi-turbine is functional.

I haven't actually been looking into them for vehicle use, but for running a generator and using compressed air as a storage medium for energy produced from pv, wind and other generating sources for use when they are not available. Though it would be nice to be able to have it run a car too.

Those airmotor designs are interesting. How is the air compressed, stored etc? I assume one would need either a high pressure tank (therefore assuming more cost to compress the air) or a much larger lower pressure tank (thereby using up more of the vehicle space) and then being limited in range to the amount of air in the tank. I suppose one could refill from service stations air (for tire inflating) until they got wise to it. One could, alternatively, carry some sort of air compressor powered by either batteries or (God forbid) gas. Sorry for the tongue in cheek but air is at best an energy storage method. Water on the other hand has an expansion rate far higher than air. All you need is some heat and away you go.

The 1st link is a scam, no specs & no particular explanations & no references to the alledged patents.

The 2nd one is a bit better, uses lots of air 10 cfm @ 22 psi per hp. this ain't bad, but would require quite the compressor/tank rig. They further refuse to back up any of their claims

CONDITIONS

• The Purchasers understand it is a prototype, and release the manufacturer from all responsibilities relative with the use.
• Sold without tested specification.
• Guarantee of the manufacturer is limited to the replacement of the defective parts.
• The purchasers must have read the present page as part of the purchase order agreement and invoice, and declare themselves satisfied with it.
• Sales done FOB Montréal, Québec Canada.
• The present document and conditions must be transferred to the chain of future owners of the unit.
• If there is intellectual propriety risk, the manufacturer can simply refund and not deliver.

The energy required to compress the air is still far too high and not all that portable....

There are many CR4 blogs that you can read about such motors, as except for special problems around explosive and the like, they are still not viable as they use too much energy....

Compressed air engines could also be steam engines. For compressed air engines, first you have to produce the power to run a compressor, then store the compressed air in very heavy and strong tanks which could explode in an accident. Then you run out of air and if you are not at your home base compressor, you are stuck. Just as limited as EVs.

A steam electric hybrid could use any fuel when beyond its 50 mile range as a pure plug-in electric vehicle, even wood pellets as long as you had places to restock them, but using kerosene or furnace fuel, vegetable oil or ethanol or a synthetic fuel would be more practical.

Taganan,

The farther I go with this design, the closer we all come to a meeting of the minds. I have taken ESBuck's advise and now have the steam going in through the sparkplug holes. Garthh's idea of using turbos is going to work to capture secondary expansion and run accessories, including a large (200amp) alternator to charge a small bank of batteries. You see, I needed some way to get a boost for passing, hill climbing and other rapid acceleration. This hopefully will also give me a "limp mode" of 10 or 15 miles. AndyGermany has also been a great help. It was you and Garthh that really got me started in this direction. However it turns out in the end (assuming it does) you all deserve a large pat on the back.

I have also decided to make the burner duel fuel. I think I can find a source for used frier oil. Most restraunts need to get rid of it in some fashion.

As soon as I get it to the test stage I will be glad to make a show of it and see what market there might be for the concept. I say this resolutly. I AM NOT IN THS FOR THE MONEY. I want to make a positive difference.

In Germany at least, some burn "fresh" cooking oil in their Diesel cars as per liter (per gallon) its still far cheaper than buying normal Diesel with its high taxes.....!!!

Used frying/cooking oil must be conditioned (filtered etc) to burn properly....but does leave a delightful smell behind it!!! Once you start running a lot, you will need to build up a number of "customers" who have used oil to dispose of......

The other good point is that a late nite "7-11" could be your savior if you run short of fuel!!!

The problem of the inlet valves is always there above a certain steam pressure, you need to be able to positively hold closed each inlet valve. That is not easy to organize in an ex IC engine.....

Starting with the style of car inlet valve is a bad idea in the first place, its built to have only a max of around 15 Lbs per Sq Inch on it from the supply side and then only when a Turbo is blowing.....usually there is a slight vacuum on it!!!!

You would be better off redesigning both valves to be similar to those in purpose built steam engines.....otherwise your efficiency will suffer badly.....and the amount of shaft power generated fall as well......

Basically, you need a new cylinder head at least as someone has already mentioned. I gave him a GA point as well.....

I'm not married to compressed air, I'm just playing around with energy storage. I was originally planning on using this in a stationary mode and using wind, solar, micro-geothermal (think Stirling and ground/air temperature differentials) and any other type of free (after the costs of purchasing and maintaining the equipment to generate the energy / compress the air. The steam model just doesn't work for my idea. I can't make steam and then store it for future use, I would have to add energy to make the steam.

That patent is way over my head, but if it can take energy and then store it for long periods of time (relatively, I won't need it after I die), then it's efficiencies claimed seem much better. Less waste good, more waste bad...Me dun lerned that right after my gozinta's. But is there some working prototype of that storage model? I didn't even see what it was using as a gas and coolant. I would love to get more information about it, Especially cost of the system/containment vessels. I'm currently just painting 500-15k gallon High pressure vessels, but getting to know some of the engineers and maintenance people for Air Liquide, Air Gas and Air Products. I'm picking their brains on costs and maintenance issues on large pressure vessels.

I also found a new airfoil design for wind generators that can use much more of the air column (25-40% vs 5-10% with conventional rotary multi-blade designs). It will all come together eventually (or we blow ourselves up, father a mutant strain of killer bug, ascend to another plane or just fall out of one :P)

But don't mind me, I'll keep following and picking your brain too (why do I feel like a chimp looking for ticks?)

If the goal is transportation powered by waste wood, here are some thoughts.

1. Use one cylinder as a compressor and pass the output, under pressure, through a bed of burning pellets, which increases the temperature and volume at constant pressure. Pass the output to one or more cylinders to expand and produce power. A conventional IC engine can provide the cylinders. Reloading pellets to the "firebox" and removing the ash is a problem left to the student. Perhaps some sort of revolver mechanism (multiple chambers, as Mr. Colt used) would work.

2. As noted, the existing intake valves are facing the wrong way to control steam, and you also need control of the volume of steam in the intake. (A throttle to simply reduce steam pressure is simple but inefficient) Use all the valves for exhaust (new camshaft) and inject the steam through the spark plug hole. A high compression ratio is better. The steam injector can be a valve actuated mechanically, electrically, or hydraulically, but the time the valve is open should be controlable.

3. There are, of course, problems with the smoke. As I understand it, environmentalists do not like burning wood. Personally, I like the smell, in moderation.

4. Surely things would be easier if the "pellets" were very small, like flour. Finely divided solid matter could be handled like a liquid (think furnace oil burner) and would burn in milliseconds.

5. When I was a boy, about sixty+ years ago, my father told me about an invention, Swedish, I think, which enabled the users to power a paper mill with the waste sulfite liquor. They injected the organic waste (lignin and such) into a boiler along with water and compressed air. The temperature and pressure were such that "wet oxidation" took place. The resulting gasseous output was a mixture of air (less oxygen), CO2 and steam (from the oxidized waste), and steam (from the water boiled by the released heat during oxidation). The gasses ran through a turbine or whatever to power the plant. If a similar set-up could be incorporated into a "steam" vehicle, one should be able to power it with almost any fuel which could be pumped or otherwise introduced into a boiler.

6. Even if this effort appears dirty, uneconomic, complicated, etc., let's think of it as insurance against a severe shortage of petroleum, such as might occur if another dimwit goes to war in the Middle East. I'm old enough to remember accounts of people powering boats and cars with wood (distilling, pyrolysing, the wood and running an IC engine off the fumes) during WW-2. There has to be a better way.

Thanks ES,

I'm glad the Buck stopped here. That's just the kind of input I was hoping for. I thought about putting the steam in through the plug holes but wasn't sure how to valve it. How about switching the input to the exhaust through the smaller valves and visa/versa for the intake becoming the exhaust? Stronger valve springs can be had. As to the smoke; I planned on using one of the newer pellet stove burners. The new burners are pretty efficient and they are fan forced (answering that scenario).

I too have wondered about a fine sawdust vs. pellets in the burner. One could experiment with that but I suspect a new type of burner would have to be built. One of my criteria is to do as little fabricating as possible, relying instead on off the shelf equipment as much as possible. Also the storage and feed problems are already handled.

Now as to the throttle; While the acceleration might not be instantanious some type of booster should be possible (though a prototype needs to be built as proof of concept).

As soon as the snow goes away I should be ready to proceed (when I stand my shop back up after having been crushed by the snow load).

I know what esbuck is talking about, a popet valve is basically a spring loaded check valve & is made to hold pressure inside the combustion chamber. It would be preferable to use a rotary or sleeve valve, maybe a desmodronic [Ducati motorcycles]. Hemi heads [plug in the center of the combustion chamber] would allow you to use the cam to accuate a different sort of valve on the high pressure side, with a minimum of modification. Since the cam is going to have to be custom, offsetting the lobes 90⁰ wouldn't be a problem.

A proper needle valve for a throttle control, butterflies aren't as linear.

A small accumulator would help provide some capacity & improve acceleration.

Yes thanks Garthh,

As an auto mechanic I'm not too familiar with popet, rotary, sleeve or desmodronic valves. I'm going to google these and try to come up to speed (old, tired brain).

Using the oxygen bottle boiler should (I hope) stand in for an accumulator. I am thinking about cutting the side off the bottle and welding 2 or 3 plates (fins) to increase the surface area. I'll probably take it to a professional for that as my welding is not up to it.

I personally feel that the following link shows the way to go with Pellets and similar. Suitably modernized and cleaned up, you can forget steam completely.

I even met a Guy about 10 years ago that had a Mercedes running in just this manner....down on power with regards to normal usuage by about 40%, but if he ran out of wood, he could switch over to petrol to get home!!!

Wood Burning Cars

Well thanks for that Andy, but I'm stuck on steam for now.

I have read some on the technology you're referring to. It seems to have a few drawbacks as well. One you already mentioned is lower power. Another is the tendancy to gum up the rings etc. due to residues in the wood. It probably depends on the type of wood burned, just as in a wood stove or fireplace.

Good luck with everything. Keep us up to date please as you progress.

Here's a related thread from last month

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/17795

G'day y'all,

No I'm not an Ausie living in southern US. I just like those two contractions.

Well anyway . . . I had a fitful night's sleep and either dreamed or consciously thought up at least part of the solution to the steam engine. After studying valves of all sorts yesterday I came up with a steam distributor that can be mounted to the otherwise useless spark distributor and route the steam via steam cleaner type hose to the spark plug holes. This will allow both intake and exhaust valves to be used for exhausting steam.

I then thought about making it a double expansion engine by dedicating two cylinders as primary and the other two as secondary. I understand that triple expansion would be the most eficient type but, at least with my limited understanding, I don't have enough cylinders in a 4 cylinder engine. Perhaps later in this process I will find a suitable V6 to use as a triple expansion project.

I started to draw up the steam distributor but I'm afraid the arthritus in my hands won't allow much of that.

A point that may interest you is that when re-using exhaust steam, as in double (triple) expansion etc., the following cylinders need to be considerably bigger that the preceding cylinders....having them the same size will not help at all.....because each cylinder has to take the expanded volume of the cylinder before, otherwise it will be "slowing" down the exhaust of the one before, thereby reducing its efficiency considerably and nothing will be gained.....

When steam expands it loses temperature, so that using steam in a single cylinder engine means that the cylinder temperature tries to heat up and cool down rapidly, which it cannot do.

To alleviate this, multiple cylinders are used, one after the other, to extract as much energy from the steam as possible and allow each cylinder to achieve its own "working" temperature....

Click on link for a full Wiki expalantion or read the quote below:-

Steam Engines

Quoting from Wikipedia:-

Compounding

As steam expands in a high pressure engine its temperature drops; because no heat is released from the system, this is known as adiabatic expansion and results in steam entering the cylinder at high temperature and leaving at low temperature. This causes a cycle of heating and cooling of the cylinder with every stroke which is a source of inefficiency.

A method to lessen the magnitude of this heating and cooling was invented in 1804 by British engineer Arthur Woolf, who patented his Woolf high pressure compound engine in 1805. In the compound engine, high pressure steam from the boiler expands in a high pressure (HP) cylinder and then enters one or more subsequent lower pressure (LP) cylinders. The complete expansion of the steam now occurs across multiple cylinders and as less expansion now occurs in each cylinder so less heat is lost by the steam in each. This reduces the magnitude of cylinder heating and cooling, increasing the efficiency of the engine. To derive equal work from lower pressure steam requires a larger cylinder volume as this steam occupies a greater volume. Therefore the bore, and often the stroke, are increased in low pressure cylinders resulting in larger cylinders.

Double expansion (usually known as compound) engines expanded the steam in two stages. The pairs may be duplicated or the work of the large LP cylinder can be split with one HP cylinder exhausting into one or the other, giving a 3-cylinder layout where cylinder and piston diameter are about the same making the reciprocating masses easier to balance.

Thanks Andy,

Yeah and I knew that too. Once I read your post it clicked. No biggee; I'll just stay with single stage and save a lot of headaches.

Snowing outside (sure glad I fixed the roof in the fall). Hopefully this is the last of this for the season.

I do not know the expansion rates, but with a 4 cylinder engine, you may get away with 1 cylinder high pressure to 3 cylinders low, but the timing may be too far off with a standard crank, therefore a 6 or 8 cylinder might be better, but I have not studied that, it was just a thought!!! Of two 4 cylinder blocks each driving the same shaft or something......!!

Andy,

Having had time to ruminate (now there's some old english for ya) on that expansion thought, I remembered Garthh's comment about using old turbochargers. One (or more) could be set up to run all the accessories perhaps.

Checkout the following for homemade jet engines:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-spt7y1v6Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0toUq9UHCSA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZoymnZRBVc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vovhaDtrdJg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsILpFsk4qE&feature=related

http://www.gas-turbines.com/nt6/index.html#videos

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/gas/dtt.htm

http://www.asciimation.co.nz/turbine/

http://www.junkyardjet.com/

http://www.technologie-entwicklung.de/Gasturbines/Turbocharger/turbocharger.html

http://www.gas-turbines.com/

It is possible to convert a 2 cylinder 2 cycle engine to make a simple single stage uniflow engine. Which is said to be quite efficient. Or consider these possibilities. A Lysholm expander [a helical turbocharger running backward] or a homebuilt Tesla Turbine. If you have a machine shop available check out the Green Steam Engine.

That is the type of engine I have been talking about. In this case it is a 4 cylinder engine that is turned into a 2 cycle by modifying a new camshaft to open both intake and exhaust valves simultaniously every upstroke. The outflow steam funnels into a turbo charger, thus allowing for secondary expansion to be utilized.

I do not have the money to even consider machine shop services. Getting the camshaft made will be hurdle enough. I also have yet to purchase or find the late model pellet stove burner I need. Another thing I will need is a set (4) of solenoid valves for the steam input manifold. These will recieve a 12 volt signal from the modified distributor to allow the steam to enter the combustion chamber when the piston is at (or just after) TDC. The rest of the parts I have at my fingertips.

Hey guys,

I may have come up against a possible show stopper. After contacting six or seven different cam manufacturers, I have not been able to find one that will make a cam for my engine at any price (let alone reasonable).

I did find a used cam grinding machine for the reasonable price of $5000.00. It has some cam blanks that come with it. I'm afraid it's a budget buster, however, since my total project budget is in that same range.

I have decided to shift my focus to operating the valves with solenoids activated by crank sensors. If anyone can help me work out the details of this I would certainly appreciate it.

Decide what you want. For example, if the cam shaft rotates once per crank revolution, one cam lobe will do. If it goes at half crank speed, you may be able to use two lobes and save some gearing.

Grind off what you don't want. That's labor intensive but cheap. With a torch, build up a blob of brazing metal (brass) and then file the contour you want. Again, it's labor intensive but cheap. It's easy to fix if you don't get it right at first.

You may wonder how long a brass cam lobe will last. I used to be involved in stock car racing. A purchased cam, hardened steel, wore out half way through a racing season. The quicky brass fix was applied, and it lasted the rest of the season. Consider that most plain bearings involve a hardened journal and a softer metal bearing, which wears only slowly if well lubricated. In the case of the cam, the follower is hardened and the cam is softer, but it doesn't wear much. Another example: I broke a helical gear which drove the distributor of a French car (in the US). I could not get a replacement, so I got blobs of welding rod where the missing teeth were, and my brother, who enjoyed that sort of thing, carved a new helical gear with files from Sears-Roebuck. Total time to repair, a day. The gear lasted until the car was eventually junked. So, if you don't trust brass, use steel and file a lot harder.

You don't have to be terribly precise. "Mother Nature" will wear off the high points to give a good profile.

Thanks esbuck,

I just posted in general section about where I am to date. I had decided to replace the standard valving with check valves. The response I have recieved from valve manufacturers to date, however, has been somewhat discouraging. I am thinking that they may not want the liability associated.

I too have had some experience with brazing up gears etc. and may yet go that route. Since one of my objectives is to build this with off the shelf parts so as to give "power to the people", I want to stay away from any more fabricating than is absolutely necessary.