Steam Engines
[Home] - [HELP] - [Forums] - [Groups] - [Classified Ads] - [Subscribe] - [Books] - [Sponsors] -

Go Back   SmokStak > SmokStak® Old Iron and Tractor Community > Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Notices

Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines Antique steam engines, their boilers, pumps, gauges, whistles and other related things that make them run.

Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines

Heating Surface


this thread has 42 replies and has been viewed 3037 times

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-18-2018, 04:10:25 PM
G Willikers G Willikers is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,983
Thanks: 12,339
Thanked 29,756 Times in 7,505 Posts
Default Heating Surface

What is the formula for determining the heating surface inside a common traction engine boiler?
Thanx
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 01-18-2018, 04:49:52 PM
GreasyIron GreasyIron is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Dakota, USA
Posts: 1,679
Thanks: 1,765
Thanked 1,798 Times in 856 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Add up all heated surfaces in square feet. Surfaces below the grate-line do not count; even in a wet bottom, there is very little heat transfer below the grate-line. The tubes would technically be figured from ID (OD minus twice the walls), but I believe most often nominal tube size is considered close enough.

The firebox door opening should be subtracted, though I don't know how often manufacturers did. Also, one could argue that you need to subtract the tube holes from the rear tube sheet, and add back in the solid areas from the front tube sheet, but I don't think it's out of line to consider them a wash.

So:
Flat surfaces are Length (or width) X Height (or width) in inches - but only measured above the grate line. Add up and divide by 144 for sqft. I believe the crown sheet is usually estimated as flat, but for a steep arc, or corrugated crown sheet, using the true curvature would be appropriate.

The tubes: Diameter X pi (3.14 close enough) X L X Number (all inches) / 144.

Add the two and you're there.

For MN, 10sqft/boilerHP is the legal definition. Traction manufactures often used closer to 11 or even 12sqft per nominal HP, with a few exceeding that. Compound engine rating become another matter all together; often adding about 1/3 to the nominal, for 3/4 or less heated surfaced per nominal HP than the same boiler with a simple engine.
Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to GreasyIron For This Post:
  #3  
Old 01-19-2018, 10:44:03 AM
G Willikers G Willikers is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,983
Thanks: 12,339
Thanked 29,756 Times in 7,505 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Greasy,
Thank you for the description.
The 10sq/ft per 1hp rule seems to ring true here in Ontario as well, or did. I used that in the Winnipeg book.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to G Willikers For This Post:
  #4  
Old 01-19-2018, 01:48:44 PM
GreasyIron GreasyIron is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Dakota, USA
Posts: 1,679
Thanks: 1,765
Thanked 1,798 Times in 856 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Quote:
Originally Posted by G Willikers View Post
Greasy,
Thank you for the description.
The 10sq/ft per 1hp rule seems to ring true here in Ontario as well, or did. I used that in the Winnipeg book.
That's good know! I'd suspected the 10 figure was typical enough at the time, but there are more unexplained twists than I'll probably ever figure out.

Noting that, I suspect most manufactures that published their heated area used tube OD instead of ID. That's only based on a few, but of those it seems consistent.
Specs from 1909 Case, 1919 Minneapolis, and Avery come to mind: using dimensions from the same spec sheets, I cannot get heated area to work out with ID for them. What's interesting there is that, if calculating with the tube ID, the ratio to nominal creeps much closer to 10sqft. Of course, nominal ratings aren't to be assumed as boiler HP, but I find the coincidence [or possible lack thereof!] interesting nonetheless.

For those who haven't calculated a boiler, you'll find the tubes adding up far faster than the firebox - maybe around 10-20% of the total area in the firebox. How much role firebox design plays vs. tube design, in firing behavior and efficiency? That's probably a discussion all by itself!

Quote:
often adding about 1/3 to the nominal
as much as might have been a better choice of words, but regardless of the amount, it can make for some wonky numbers if merely comparing to a simple engine.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GreasyIron For This Post:
  #5  
Old 01-19-2018, 02:32:16 PM
G Willikers G Willikers is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,983
Thanks: 12,339
Thanked 29,756 Times in 7,505 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Greasy,
I did come across the 11 and 12 % figures for heating surface but went with 10/hp because that was more commonly mentioned, plus that worked out for our local inspection certificates.
Fire box measurements are iffy because some manufacturers give inside and outside measurements. I wish they would just give inside, along with firebox height above the grates rather than overall.
Winnipeg rated compound engines in two ways - take the low pressure cylinder at regular boiler pressure; or simply add 10% to the rated hp of the comparable simple engine. Most of the compound Abell, Sawyer-Massey, and Case engines, for example, had boilers adapted from related simple engines.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to G Willikers For This Post:
  #6  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:43:00 PM
halcon halcon is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Fillmore, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 1,240
Thanks: 2,681
Thanked 2,005 Times in 876 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

There is a great variation in the effectiveness of a square foot of heating surface depending where it is located in the boiler. Example a square foot of crown sheet is more effective than the far end of long tubes because the heat there is more intense. So the only near accurate way to rate a boiler is using steaming tests. This could account for the variation in the square feet per horse power formula used by different builders.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to halcon For This Post:
  #7  
Old 01-19-2018, 10:34:00 PM
G Willikers G Willikers is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,983
Thanks: 12,339
Thanked 29,756 Times in 7,505 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Then you get into systems like the John Abell stepped crown sheet with its special air charging straw grate. That would take more calculations!
When you think about it, the basic straw grate might also change all the calculations because it directs the flame towards the back head before taking it across the top and through the tubes.
I have no experience with coal, but with wood, you generally build a very deep fire when working hard, thus changing the whole dynamic of the heating calculations.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to G Willikers For This Post:
  #8  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:34:28 PM
George Hoffman George Hoffman is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Surrey B.C. Canada
Posts: 518
Thanks: 720
Thanked 1,817 Times in 413 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Just to contaminate this thread a bit, how about tube gauge ? My GS had the original 12 GA tubes until I changed them in 2008. I used 9 GA tubes from a pulp mill. I did find the machine considerably harder to fire with the heavier tubes.
The Rumely I retubed with 12 GA and the difference is like night and day. Plowing at the 2 shows in the US using their good steam coal was no work at all. The firebox sheet in the Rumely is only 11/32 " so gives a good heat transfer.
Cheers.
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to George Hoffman For This Post:
  #9  
Old 01-20-2018, 12:44:22 AM
GreasyIron GreasyIron is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Dakota, USA
Posts: 1,679
Thanks: 1,765
Thanked 1,798 Times in 856 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Quote:
Originally Posted by halcon View Post
There is a great variation in the effectiveness of a square foot of heating surface depending where it is located in the boiler. Example a square foot of crown sheet is more effective than the far end of long tubes because the heat there is more intense. So the only near accurate way to rate a boiler is using steaming tests. This could account for the variation in the square feet per horse power formula used by different builders.
Effectiveness/specific location was the discussion I was wondering would come around - truly a discussion by itself, but I think G hammered out his question several posts ago, so why not!

Just to avoid confusion, for those only interested in boiler HP for inspection criteria: it is the total of the [fire-side] heated surfaces divided by whatever number your jurisdiction states - probably 10. Back to history....

No doubt, the steaming tests would be the only accurate method; yet [ granted still only hypothesizing based on catalog spec-sheets] I just don't think most of the US manufacturers were that methodical for rating purposes. It seems that non-scientific "standards" crept in, with marketing wielding more of a hand on the throttle than design for naming.

I'll use Minneapolis, since I have a spec sheet before and after the redesign, and we own one so cannot be accused of picking on anyone. Doubles stayed the same for 22,30, and 35; but the 25 became a 26. Why??? Compounds were the next size smaller, but the 30 was on a 22 boiler, not a 25. Why???? Return Flue compounds were the opposite, getting new names; the 18 did become a 22 (the next size simple), but maybe coincident with that number following the same math (about 22%) as the 22/27. On new style boilers, the 28HP Canadian had two less tubes (37 instead of the 25's 39, but 10% more pressure) than the 25HP..... a year later, change to 2" tubes and it's a 28[American] now.

That last example I find most interesting, because all three seem to fire identical [as much as one can determine, with never less than two weeks between] to me. On a scientific efficiency test [the Canadian I've operated is at 150, not 165, so apples to apples on pressure] one would have to imagine the 28 American with 62 tubes eeking out a bit more steam per pound of coal, but I doubt 10% more. Compare that with a 80 Case (25HP class, same bore and stroke), close to the same number of tubes, but less grate area, and less water - a different critter all together.

Maybe for sanity sake [nabbing a statement from Halcon in another thread] ".....we shouldn't believe any thing written by a sales man."

Quote:
Originally Posted by G Willikers View Post
I did come across the 11 and 12 % figures for heating surface but went with 10/hp because that was more commonly mentioned, plus that worked out for our local inspection certificates.
Did any of the Canadian manufacturers publish heated sqft? Now I'm curious whether their math was as "creative" as the US engines, or if the Canadians were more consistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G Willikers View Post
Then you get into systems like the John Abell stepped crown sheet with its special air charging straw grate. That would take more calculations!
When you think about it, the basic straw grate might also change all the calculations because it directs the flame towards the back head before taking it across the top and through the tubes.
I have no experience with coal, but with wood, you generally build a very deep fire when working hard, thus changing the whole dynamic of the heating calculations.
Imagining the calculations in a firebox set-up for straw does about make your head spin! For the inspectors purposes, I don't see any difference in the math, but imagining what areas are the most effective heat zones...interesting indeed!

Assuming the grates not obviously favoring one or the other, I don't see much difference in the relative personality of an engine on coal or wood. I heard others speak of engines preferring one or the other (usually coal), I suspect then it is mostly grates, but can imagine coal seeming easier if working a relatively tough steaming engine on a good load.

---------- Post added at 10:44:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38:40 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by george hoffman View Post
Just to contaminate this thread a bit, how about tube gauge ? My GS had the original 12 GA tubes until I changed them in 2008. I used 9 GA tubes from a pulp mill. I did find the machine considerably harder to fire with the heavier tubes.
The Rumely I retubed with 12 GA and the difference is like night and day. Plowing at the 2 shows in the US using their good steam coal was no work at all. The firebox sheet in the Rumely is only 11/32 " so gives a good heat transfer.
Cheers.
Great point George! I'm fairly confident that our Keck fires quite easy for similar reasons. Thickness is definitely a factor in heat transfer.

Last edited by GreasyIron; 01-20-2018 at 01:13:27 AM. Reason: George beat me to it!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GreasyIron For This Post:
  #10  
Old 01-20-2018, 01:24:01 PM
20 Reeves Highwheeler's Avatar
20 Reeves Highwheeler 20 Reeves Highwheeler is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Helena, Montana USA
Posts: 8,140
Thanks: 9,545
Thanked 8,238 Times in 2,119 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Somewhere in an old ammo box in son's shop are the letters I received from my late friend, Tom Stebritz of Algona, Iowa. He was telling me that many of the earlier Case engines (such as our 15 hp) had 5/16" plate instead of 3/8" plate in their fireboxes, in certain areas. I'm not sure which anymore. While boiler inspectors thought it had eroded from 3/8" to 5/16", apparently that was from the factory. They would throw up their arms and gasp with 5/16" plate, and cut you back to "50 psi" upon discovering that thickness. Tom said it was all about heat transfer. While Tom left me wondering in some ways (politically??), I never found him in error on anything steam.
Gary
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 20 Reeves Highwheeler For This Post:
  #11  
Old 01-20-2018, 03:26:25 PM
G Willikers G Willikers is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,983
Thanks: 12,339
Thanked 29,756 Times in 7,505 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

This is interesting. I hope you chaps can continue the discussion. There is much to learn!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to G Willikers For This Post:
  #12  
Old 01-20-2018, 04:32:19 PM
David Hoover David Hoover is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,622
Thanks: 2,319
Thanked 4,140 Times in 1,260 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

In the 1918 Laying Out for Boilermakers book is some calculations for heating area of tubes....
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	58F0C6D7-4E4F-4DCA-9DBA-F13F592BAB84.jpg
Views:	27
Size:	159.9 KB
ID:	300940   Click image for larger version

Name:	63616C63-0506-4F88-BEDC-EC18E58A74A3.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	178.9 KB
ID:	300941  

Last edited by David Hoover; 01-20-2018 at 07:28:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to David Hoover For This Post:
  #13  
Old 01-20-2018, 07:36:32 PM
David Hoover David Hoover is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,622
Thanks: 2,319
Thanked 4,140 Times in 1,260 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Here’s some interesting formula calculating info...https://www.engineersedge.com/pressu...els_menu.shtml. https://www.engineersedge.com/pressu...sure_13907.htm
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to David Hoover For This Post:
  #14  
Old 01-20-2018, 09:43:15 PM
GreasyIron GreasyIron is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Dakota, USA
Posts: 1,679
Thanks: 1,765
Thanked 1,798 Times in 856 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Quote:
Originally Posted by 20 Reeves Highwheeler View Post
Somewhere in an old ammo box in son's shop are the letters I received from my late friend, Tom Stebritz of Algona, Iowa. He was telling me that many of the earlier Case engines (such as our 15 hp) had 5/16" plate instead of 3/8" plate in their fireboxes, in certain areas. I'm not sure which anymore.
Gary
Maybe the Case gurus can give more details, but I think even post 1910, 11/32 (.344) was common firebox thickness on their medium sized engines. Completely a guess for me, but I'm imagining when pressures went from 130 to 150, stepping up the thickness from 5/16 to 3/8 was quicker than redesigning stay patterns. The 11/32 then seems a nice compromise, but it'd be fun to know whether 11/32 vs 3/8 was from calculations per each specific size, or maybe they made the quick jump to 3/8 and later changed back to 11/32 for cost saving &/or firing ease?

A 4X4 stay pattern is how the late [I don't know about the earlier ones] Keck Gonnerman fireboxes achieved calculations with 5/16. The trade off for us modern enthusiasts is that 5/16(.313) doesn't leave much wasting until 1/4"(.250) which then gets into stay thread count issues as well as the pillowing formula sneaking up quickly from .313 - thickness being squared in that equation.

Regardless, assuming "apples to apples", but thickness, heat transfer is directly [rather inversely] proportional to thickness, so that 20% difference between .313 and .375 can feel huge. Not quite 20% would be realized, because the tubes would pick up a little more heat transfer from the higher temps entering them, but without grabbing the slide rule, I'd say less than half of it.

The tubes play out the same equation, as in George's example earlier. A 35% increase in thickness would certainly make for more firing work!

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hoover View Post
The sqft calculation from the book, I'm certain is for a Horizontal Return Tube (think industrial, with lower part of the shell itself exposed to the fire instead of a firebox or fire flue) instead of a locomotive or Scotch marine boiler, but they did specify tube ID there too - that reinforces to me that manufacturers using OD on traction engines was either marketing, or an early mistake that became perpetuated through the industry. It'd still be interesting to see any published areas by Canadian manufactures. The example also did add the tube sheets minus the tubes; on a locomotive style engine I would argue the short-cut I noted earlier valid enough for almost any purpose, but not much harder to calculate.

Those tube collapse equations really got my attention; I thought there may be something offering insight to the fire flue thickness/MAWP on a return flue engine, but even the external pressure vessel equations seemed to veer a little different direction.....which exploring that topic is veering way off thread.....

However, MAWP in general, could be it's own twist regarding this thread. Avery comes to mind with a 30Special and 40 having near identical boilers; 33bHP each to a 10 standard, but 1/3 more rating for an additional 25psi. 50psi difference if the standard 30 is counted too [but a few tubes less, wouldn't quite make 30bHP by area/10], so the boost to 40 is reasonable, but identical on the boiler inspector's calculations regardless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G Willikers View Post
This is interesting. I hope you chaps can continue the discussion. There is much to learn!
I don't know if we've scratched the surface!?
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GreasyIron For This Post:
  #15  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:45:40 PM
David Hoover David Hoover is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,622
Thanks: 2,319
Thanked 4,140 Times in 1,260 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

In the boiler specification sheets I have at home from the Alberta boiler branch blue print approvals and calculations, they use the ID of the shell . Firebox dimensions are basic length, width and height. Grate area and inside diameter and gauge of the tubes is included also. They can’t be reproduced on here in full due to provincial copyright laws. They are however, quite basic and don’t take into account various things such as fire door dimensions and such. This is probably the largest collection of boiler drawings from the age of steam in existence in one place, with not only the boilers that met the provincial regs but also all the manufacturers that submitted drawings and were unapproved which covers most builders of the circa 1909/10 era. I don’t have any Abell drwgs here but they are accessible . It would be interesting to see how the inspectors wrote up the calculations on those. An interesting note was from boiler branch to Minniapolis thresher co in 1913 regarding their 36” and 38” barrel loco style boilers. The province directed some changes to the Minneapolis drawings at companies request and gave a calculated working pressure of 188 lbs ( just not in Alberta, as the provinces chosen pressure cap of 175 psi overruled all.)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	9BC26AA0-1941-4127-851A-E048441614EA.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	126.3 KB
ID:	300951   Click image for larger version

Name:	7E04E8EF-3D37-4485-9309-8F093523FC9D.jpg
Views:	24
Size:	137.0 KB
ID:	300953  

Last edited by David Hoover; 01-21-2018 at 12:28:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to David Hoover For This Post:
  #16  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:28:06 AM
GreasyIron GreasyIron is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Dakota, USA
Posts: 1,679
Thanks: 1,765
Thanked 1,798 Times in 856 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Cool boiler sheet! What size SM is it for? That's probably enough to get a good idea of the firebox. Do you have the tube specs on that?

---------- Post added at 10:18:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02:03 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hoover View Post
They are however, quite basic and don’t take into account various things such as fire door dimensions and such.
An estimate there should be plenty close; maybe a couple sqft off even if we don't figure for it. The tube measurement might swing it over 20sqft if OD instead of ID, so I'm more curious there. With those sheets for official submittal instead of advertising, I expect ID, but we'll see.

---------- Post added at 10:28:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18:47 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 20 Reeves Highwheeler View Post
He was telling me that many of the earlier Case engines (such as our 15 hp) had 5/16" plate instead of 3/8" plate in their fireboxes, in certain areas. I'm not sure which anymore.
Gary
The book I took this data from seems to mix years enough, not to mention other possible errors, that it's not much help, but does at least have an example of each of three firebox thicknesses.

30 5/16
40 11/32
50 11/32
60 5/16
65 11/32
75 11/32
80 11/32
110 3/8
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GreasyIron For This Post:
  #17  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:46:04 AM
David Hoover David Hoover is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,622
Thanks: 2,319
Thanked 4,140 Times in 1,260 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

That was from 1911 and would have been a 106hp engine I believe. The tube dimensions are 1.82 id (13 gauge) qty 56, 951/4 long. These are the sheets filled out by the inspectors who approved the initial boiler for construction and not tied to any form of advertising, all drawings were submitted before they built a tractor , the rating that was calculated by the province dictated what size of engine the builder manufactured for it. They where checked and signed by Francis Hobson the chief inspector of Alberta throughout the steam traction years. For a comparison, the dimensions for the 100hp Sawyer boiler of 1913 are identical except there were only 54 tubes and the heating surface was reduced to 277.03 sq ft. Both boilers obtained the 175lbs approval.i don’t have any but most of the Case drawings are also at the archives.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to David Hoover For This Post:
  #18  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:22:38 AM
George Hoffman George Hoffman is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Surrey B.C. Canada
Posts: 518
Thanks: 720
Thanked 1,817 Times in 413 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

David,
to rehash an old thread if i remember correctly { Smolik 40-140 Rumely] the 36 horse American wet bottom boiler has 88 tubes and the Canadian Erie dry bottom boilers were only 76 tubes. According to the books they were both called 36 horse and are identical in size [ 40" dia ] Are there drawings in the archives for both of these showing the specs ?
On several of the old inspection sheets for this boiler it shows 400 SQ FT. of heating surface.
Cheers.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to George Hoffman For This Post:
  #19  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:26:49 AM
George Hoffman George Hoffman is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Surrey B.C. Canada
Posts: 518
Thanks: 720
Thanked 1,817 Times in 413 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

Here is the tube count.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	April 2016 Rumely completed 088.jpg
Views:	27
Size:	173.7 KB
ID:	300955  
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:29:46 AM
David Hoover David Hoover is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,622
Thanks: 2,319
Thanked 4,140 Times in 1,260 Posts
Default Re: Heating Surface

I think both drwgs are there George. They’ll have all the same type of information and spec sheets as well as the correspondence between Rumely and the province regarding their designs. What usually happened was the manufacturer submitted the original drawing ( which in a lot of cases was still built and sold in the states) then after the recommendations were followed, resubmitted new drawings for the new improved design. In most cases all the drawings are still together, with all the changes documented. Those records really show the progressive boiler development in how the manufacturers conformed to the new regulations.

Last edited by David Hoover; 01-21-2018 at 02:42:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to David Hoover For This Post:
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

F o r u m Jump

Similar Threads Chosen at Random
Thread Thread Starter F o r u m Replies Last Post
Surface wiring. Frank DeWitt Lighting Fixtures, Switch Panels and Meters 3 05-15-2016 10:16:54 PM
tube surface heating area sftyvlv1 Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines 1 07-03-2014 01:02:31 PM
Heating surface calculations Richard H. Gambrell Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines 9 09-12-2013 12:00:19 PM
Surface Rust on Rotor will s Generac Generators (SEARS, etc.) 2 04-10-2009 12:07:39 PM
Case "Heating Surface Area" Rick Strobel Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines 34 01-07-2008 09:54:23 AM


Use "Ctrl" mouse wheel to change screen size.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:15:52 AM.

Smokstak and Enginads site search!


All use is subject to our TERMS OF SERVICE
SMOKSTAK® is a Registered Trade Mark - A Community of Antique Engine Enthusiasts
Copyright © 2000 - 2019 by Harry Matthews P.O. Box 5612 - Sarasota, FL 34277