Archive for The Unofficial Mamod and Other Steam Forum The Original Toy Steam Forum
Established 2006
The biggest, most popular global steam forum around! Accept NO imitations!
We have a growing community of regular posting members who chat about all aspects of toy and model steam.
 


       The Unofficial Mamod and Other Steam Forum Forum Index -> General discussion
steam technology

Most powerful engine??

What is the most powerful type of engine. I don't particularly mean brand, More about design ie slide valve, overtype etc. I realise bigger is better but pound for pound which setup is more powerful.
i am trying to decide what to go for next so any advice greatly appreciated.
The Denying Dutchman

Power to weight ratio? I guess a simple overtype oscillating engine.
Dean W

Well, "overtype" isn't a type of engine, it's an orientation, or configuration.  

The two main types of engines in toy steamers is valve, and valveless.  The valveless engines most
familiar are the common oscillator type.  

The common valve types are "D" slide valves and spool valves.  I think most people here may call those two types the same thing, i.e., slide valve.

If you mean to choose between the oscillators and the slide valve engines,  then all things being equal, a
slide valve engine will usually be more powerful.  
Slide valve engines, especially those with a "D" type valve, have very little steam loss, and can be timed for best power.
Next would be spool valve types, common on toy steamers.  They have a valve that is just a round bit of metal,
which goes in and out of a bored hole on the side of the cylinder.  These can also be timed pretty easily for best
power, but their general nature means that some steam escapes to the atmosphere.
Oscillators, or wobblers are usually least efficient due to a couple of design situations.  For one thing, they have
rather large movement in the complete cylinder which is constantly rubbing port faces creating friction.  They are
also almost completely open to the atmosphere as the cylinder swings on its axis, and release a good amount
of steam in that manner.  The spring on the cylinder block can be tightened to a certain extent to limit some of the
steam loss, but that further increases friction between the port faces.

So, generally speaking, a true valved engine will be more powerful, given the same displacement, steam pressure,
and build quality.

Dean
E=MC2

Most Powerful Model Model Steam Engines.

Most Powerful Model Model Steam Engines.

Although I am not an expert on model steam engines,and powerful model steam engines interest me,probably at least some of the most powerful mass-produced model steam engines in current production  are:-
JENSEN 25.
JENSEN 75.
JENSEN 20.
JENSEN 50.
http://webcache.googleusercontent...4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
http://www.jensensteamengines.com/commrcl.htm

MAMOD SP5 Mk2 1335 Twin.
MAMOD SP5D Mk2 1335D Twin.
MAMOD SP6 1338.
MAMOD SP7 Twin. Special Order Model.

http://www.forest-classics.co.uk/mamod_sp5.htm

http://webcache.googleusercontent...1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

http://modelsteam.myfreeforum.org...html&highlight=mamod+sp7+twin

WILESCO D20.
WILSECO D21.
WILESCO D22 Twin.
WILESCO D24.

http://www.wilesco-steam.co.uk/

For historic collectors mass-produced model steam engines.which are powerful,go for engines like the big Marklin's,the Wilesco D32 Twin,some of the Jensen's,the Mamod SE3 Twin,and so on.

For powerful model engineer type engines go for Stuart Turner,Cotswold Heritage,Historic Steam Models,etc,although these can be very expensive.

http://www.stationroadsteam.com/stuart%20turner.htm

I am sure some  other Forum Members will be able to guide you in the right direction,probably better than I can

Robert.
Dean W

Re: Most powerful engine??

Robert, he was asking what design was the more powerful, not which brand.

steam technology wrote:
I don't particularly mean brand, More about design ie slide valve, overtype etc.
SlideValve

I would agree with a "D" slide valve, though on a larger scale a Corliss might be more efficient because you have varible valve timing   
Dean W

A fair point, Connor!  I don't know who makes a Toy Corliss engine, though.  Other types of engines
have adjustable valve timing, too, but they are also not usually found in toy steamers.  
scorpion2nz

I thought Horsepower at the end of the day come down to the

Stoker/fireman/coal shoveler.

ie the more power you wanted the more coal you had to shovel .

I know the solid fuel for our toys is crap as when you run 1 on solid fuel then try again on meths there is a big difference  and I would be sure if you put a  high pressure gas burner under them there would be a increase in power
SlideValve

Dean W wrote:
A fair point, Connor!  I don't know who makes a Toy Corliss engine, though.  Other types of engines
have adjustable valve timing, too, but they are also not usually found in toy steamers.  


A Corliss toy steam engine would be a bust, it would be way to expenisve to make, and at that scale, i'm guesing no apparent performance increase would be noticable. I've seen a couple large models though, i think Gil has a couple  
Dean W

scorpion2nz wrote:
I thought Horsepower at the end of the day come down to the
Stoker/fireman/coal shoveler.
ie the more power you wanted the more coal you had to shovel .



No, at the end of the day, horsepower comes down to how much steam pressure you can put on the end(s) of
the piston.   The maximum boiler pressure is a given.   What the engine does with it is what makes horsepower.

Just because your boiler won't make more steam doesn't mean that the engine won't make more power.  
It just won't make more power with that boiler.  You can shovel all the coal you want into a boiler the size of
an oil barrel, and it still won't make enough steam to make 6 hp on an engine rated for 6 hp.
Bugsy

Mr. Lutz Hielscher demonstrated a new turbine for us in Wuppertal last Sunday. His own design, it had a turbine wheel machined out of solid aluminium driven from a 0.5mm nozzle. I was invited to try and stop it by grabbing the output shaft. It had so much torque I didn't have a chance of even slowing it down.
Pity it was so expensive, €800.
Wallace

Ok, nothing scientific here, no bore and stroke measurements etc, just observations from enjoying the hobby and roughly estimating similar size engines..........

When the following engines are connected to the Blue Thunder generator the Piston valve seems to perform the best

1) Mamod challenger (piston valve)
2) Jensen 75 (slide valve?)
3) Fleischmann 122/4 (slide valve)

A SE3 twin oscillating seems to be equal to about the Jensen 75

I know you didn't mean manufacturers and to me they have no relevance either. I just put the names mostly to indicate the model type
benchmark

I can only talk from my personal experience and this is what i noticed using exactly the same air pressure :

oscillators have more RPM but less torque as all the lunatic oscillating power is quickly tamed or may even grind to a halt when heavy loads are applied.

In contrast , Slide-valve engines do not have as high RPM as the oscillators but much more torque and can run heavier setup loads applied to them.

Notice what Bugsy wrote above about the Turbine demonstrated before our eyes, even though i do not have one (for 800 obvious reasons ) the torque which this small machine spat out was unbelievable !! we could simple not grab the flywheel with our hands and stop it from moving even though it was rotating slowly before our eyes. How many of our engines do you know that can defy the human grabbing-stop test?

So in descending order as related to power (Power is the rate of doing work or producing or expending energy. In other words, is a measure of how quickly a work can be done.) I will say:

Properly designed turbine > slide-valve > oscillator engine .
logoman

Bugsy wrote:
Mr. Lutz Hielscher demonstrated a new turbine for us in Wuppertal last Sunday. His own design, it had a turbine wheel machined out of solid aluminium driven from a 0.5mm nozzle. I was invited to try and stop it by grabbing the output shaft. It had so much torque I didn't have a chance of even slowing it down.
Pity it was so expensive, €800.


Any pictures?
benchmark

logoman wrote:


Any pictures?


None yet, it is not even in his shop catalog that i came back with.  In the catalog you will see the old turbine '50' but this one is called turbine '80' and he said it was a new a patented design.
Dr. Rog

Re: Most powerful engine??

steam technology wrote:
pound for pound which setup is more powerful.
i am trying to decide what to go for next so any advice greatly appreciated.


Watts per £/$/E?
From the experience posted here the Mamod piston valved engines seem to give excellent power and are price competitive compared with the big German and US engines.

The smaller oscillating Mamods, MM2, SE1, SP2 are very cheap, yet have the same burner capacity of the bigger mobiles. So their power/ currency ratio is very good within the lower end of the market.

Perhaps you need to consider your expectations as to what you want the engine to do, and what budget you have to make the decision easier.
ozsteamdemon

Best bang for your buck = piston valve .

Best piston valve engine ?

I could tell you , but i dont wanna start WW-3  
Swift Fox

I agree about slidevalve engines as they offer the best bang for the buck, my best oscillating engine has to be the Steamco STC-04 which hardly leaks any steam around the portface and is as powerful as my Wilesco D10 when run on my blue thunder generator.

I'd be interested to see the new Hielscher turbine, although it is a bit steep at €800
H2o vapour

Interesting point there,

If you look at the evolution of the modern ship, slide valve and expansion engines gave way to turbines.

I have a book somewhere about passenger steamers, which follows the above evolution, turbines came in - in about 1920, obviously following the Turnbinia episode, the record on the Fleetwood to IOM crossing was smashed in appros 1920 to 222 mins- by a turbine steamer, thats fast !!!

They openly state in the book that the power of the turbine was not fully undertood. Also if you think about it most power stations a turbine operated off supper heated steam -

I think if you are looking for toy steam, any of the piston vale engines are good, I have a Stuart D10, needs a big boiler, but it is a real beast when it runs well

Regards

H2o
Dr. Rog

Good point about superheated steam.
600 degrees C and 400psi is a bit demanding for toy steam. Clearly some compromise is required.    
steam technology

Great Advice one & all. Thanks for the suggestions. The turbine is off the radar tho'. Its not the price of the engine that worries me

Its what I will have to pay when the better half finds out!!!

I have lots of good suggestions & browsing material to go on now.
Thanks again.
steam technology

ozsteamdemon wrote:
Best bang for your buck = piston valve .

Best piston valve engine ?

I could tell you , but i dont wanna start WW-3  


We dont want any wars on here. But you could start a minor battle.

Only joking, I would still like to know your opinion tho'. Maybe PM me with the engine.
Wallace

steam technology wrote:
ozsteamdemon wrote:
Best bang for your buck = piston valve .

Best piston valve engine ?

I could tell you , but i dont wanna start WW-3  


We dont want any wars on here. But you could start a minor battle.

Only joking, I would still like to know your opinion tho'. Maybe PM me with the engine.


Yeah please post it mate. I'd be interested to hear as until the Mamod Piston valves came out I'd never heard of that type so also interested to hear what other toy/model manufacturers use them.

As earlier, I did find the piston valve to be most powerful out of what I own but didn't look into it any further
Dean W

[quote="Wallace"]
steam technology wrote:


Yeah please post it mate. I'd be interested to hear as until the Mamod Piston valves came out I'd never heard of that type


Andrew, it's the type Jensen has been using for decades.  Anything they make that is not a wobbler is a piston valve engine.  
I think it's used in quite a few other makes, too.

I called that type a spool valve in my first post to this thread.  
Piston valve = Spool valve.  I guess it's called that by some here (in the States) because it looks
kind of like a spool.  But, same thing.

Dean
Dr. Rog

Don't piston or spool valves have to be round?
Dean W

Dr. Rog wrote:
Don't piston or spool valves have to be round?


They are round, yes.  Usually with one or more grooves, holes, or flat spots in/on them.

Slide valves, like used on more expensive toy engines or real steam engines are usually, (not always) shaped
like a rectangular block with a number of the sides milled to allow steam passage, a cross block, and a place
for the valve rod to occupy.

I know some folks call all types of valves that work on an eccentric a slide valve, which is fine, because we
mostly know what they mean, but the different types are really quite different in appearance.  

Dean
Wallace

Thanks for the info Dean. I never knew that. I'm off to google to find more  
redryder

Since you asked:

This is likely the most powerful type of engine although not steam:

The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today.  The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken.
    It is available in 6 through 14 cylinder versions, all are inline engines.  These engines were designed primarily for very large container ships.  Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them.

    The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98".  Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower.  Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.

    Some facts on the 14 cylinder version:
Total engine weight: 2300 tons  (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)
Length: 89 feet
Height: 44 feet
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm  
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm  

    Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption).  Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour.  At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency.  That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.
    For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

    Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.


Pictures here:  

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/index.html.o


The largest locomotives were considered the most powerful steam engines in their day.

E=MC2

Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C Marine Diesel Engine.

http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/big%20engine.JPG

I am a member of the Lorry Enthusiast's Website:BIGLORRYBLOG,and I  came across a photograph of the magnificent and impressive Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C  Marine Diesel Engine on the BIGLORRYBLOG Website,QV above link.
The photograph shows the massive engine,towering above it's transporter,being transported on a heavy haulage drawbar trailer,being pulled by a German-built Mercedes-Benz Actros,Ballast Box-Bodied, 6X4 Heavy Haulage Diesel Road Locomotive.

Robert.
Sandman

Jeez, Gil, that pic brought back some great memories. Here's me with that same engine, at the Ford museum in Detroit.

ozsteamdemon

Wallace wrote:
steam technology wrote:
ozsteamdemon wrote:
Best bang for your buck = piston valve .

Best piston valve engine ?

I could tell you , but i dont wanna start WW-3  


We dont want any wars on here. But you could start a minor battle.

Only joking, I would still like to know your opinion tho'. Maybe PM me with the engine.


Yeah please post it mate. I'd be interested to hear as until the Mamod Piston valves came out I'd never heard of that type so also interested to hear what other toy/model manufacturers use them.

As earlier, I did find the piston valve to be most powerful out of what I own but didn't look into it any further


A good point you mention there Wallace , so my advice can also be based on the same notion of my expirence from the engines i own .

Its a DEAD HEAT  between 2 of my favs .

Jensen 20 and Wilesco D24 on gas .  

Each have their own good points .

The 20 is built tough , 3/4" x 3/4" B & S , cast iron base , huge heavy F/W , great crosshead & guide , beefy crank , a good size shiney boiler and awesome salmon pink firebox ! A real good looker and a strong steamer .



The D24 is just an awesome steamer , i drove 28 accessories from mine , and i reckon it would have handled a few more .

steam technology

I am truly impressed

WOW what a setup

That D24 really rocks. The only thing that beats the Engine is the production of the video. You will have give all your crew a pay rise.

Just one question. Does it get confusing with all those staff of yours having the same name???
redryder

Among the more commonly known toy steam engines, there is little that compares with a Jensen #20.

To back this up, note that this entire Jensen display is powered by a single Jensen #5.

Tom Sr used this at toy fairs to promote his products.

Gil

Photo and words below are property of Jensen Steam Engines.



"This display was designed to show the awesome power of even our smallest engines. A model # 5 was used to turn 3 idle engines, plus the 30" Meccano Erector model of a carnival airplane ride. The idle engines are a # 20-g, a model # 35 and a model # 55 twin cylinder unit. The idle engines are in neutral or vented through the boilers.
As you can see, the addition of Erector constructions is a delightful way to display your steam engine and put it to work. (Jensen Steam Engines really sound great  when running under a load.)"
redryder

ozsteamdemon,  I just watched your 2 videos of the D-24 and the Jensen 20G.

They are both excellent !!!!

Well done,

            Gil
ozsteamdemon

steam technology wrote:
I am truly impressed

WOW what a setup

That D24 really rocks. The only thing that beats the Engine is the production of the video. You will have give all your crew a pay rise.

Just one question. Does it get confusing with all those staff of yours having the same name???


Thanks for the nice words there steam tech`  

A pay rise for that lot ?    No-way !!!!

Do i get confused with the staff ? ........ Nar , i dont discriminate with my demons , i yell at em all the same !  
ozsteamdemon

redryder wrote:
ozsteamdemon,  I just watched your 2 videos of the D-24 and the Jensen 20G.

They are both excellent !!!!

Well done,

            Gil


Thanks Gil , nice of you to say that .    

And thanks for adding the pic and description of the Jensen 5 driving all that load .......... its allways fascinating to see the History of Jensen and particularly Mr Tom Snr .

Hey steam tech , sorry for hogging your thread mate ......... i`ll butt-out now .  
Dr. Rog

Re: Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C Marine Diesel Engine.

E=MC2 wrote:
http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/big%20engine.JPG

I am a member of the Lorry Enthusiast's Website:BIGLORRYBLOG,and I  came across a photograph of the magnificent and impressive Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C  Marine Diesel Engine on the BIGLORRYBLOG Website,QV above link.
The photograph shows the massive engine,towering above it's transporter,being transported on a heavy haulage drawbar trailer,being pulled by a German-built Mercedes-Benz Actros,Ballast Box-Bodied, 6X4 Heavy Haulage Diesel Road Locomotive.

Robert.


Amazing picture. makes me want to rob the engine out of my old car and hook it up to a TE.

Thank I need a good trailer though.  
MrMamod

The most powerful engine i have is this one     BUT sadly   due to my arthritis getting worse it is going to be put up for SALE.


steam technology

ozsteamdemon wrote:
redryder wrote:
ozsteamdemon,  I just watched your 2 videos of the D-24 and the Jensen 20G.

They are both excellent !!!!

Well done,

            Gil


Thanks Gil , nice of you to say that .    

And thanks for adding the pic and description of the Jensen 5 driving all that load .......... its allways fascinating to see the History of Jensen and particularly Mr Tom Snr .

Hey steam tech , sorry for hogging your thread mate ......... i`ll butt-out now .  


Theres no such thing as hogging in my opinion.Feel free to butt back in anytime
Timonade

Well. Basically an engine is as powerful as it's owner wants it to be.

It's possible to move a car with a MM1 too, if properly taken care of, plus the transmission, heavier flywheel and a way bigger boiler.
Dean W

Timonade wrote:
Well. Basically an engine is as powerful as it's owner wants it to be.


Well, not really.  It is limited by it's design type and construction materials.  You will not get past
those limits, no matter how much steam you put into it.  At a point, the engine will just come apart.

Quote:

It's possible to move a car with a MM1 too, if properly taken care of, plus the transmission, heavier flywheel and a way bigger boiler.


You could, but it will not be due to the power of the engine in this case, and again, a bigger boiler will simply
de-construct the engine at a certain point.  To move something like a car with an MM1, you would need such a
great deal of gear reduction that the car would take hours to move a few feet.
redryder

Dean W wrote:
Timonade wrote:
Well. Basically an engine is as powerful as it's owner wants it to be.


Well, not really.  It is limited by it's design type and construction materials.  You will not get past
those limits, no matter how much steam you put into it.  At a point, the engine will just come apart.

Quote:

It's possible to move a car with a MM1 too, if properly taken care of, plus the transmission, heavier flywheel and a way bigger boiler.


You could, but it will not be due to the power of the engine in this case, and again, a bigger boiler will simply
de-construct the engine at a certain point.  To move something like a car with an MM1, you would need such a
great deal of gear reduction that the car would take hours to move a few feet.


All true and the MM1 along with most other toy steam engines would have trouble just turning the reduction gears required to move a car with such a tiny power supply.

Gil
Wallace

ozsteamdemon wrote:


A good point you mention there Wallace , so my advice can also be based on the same notion of my expirence from the engines i own .

Its a DEAD HEAT  between 2 of my favs .

Jensen 20 and Wilesco D24 on gas .  

Each have their own good points .

The 20 is built tough , 3/4" x 3/4" B & S , cast iron base , huge heavy F/W , great crosshead & guide , beefy crank , a good size shiney boiler and awesome salmon pink firebox ! A real good looker and a strong steamer .



The D24 is just an awesome steamer , i drove 28 accessories from mine , and i reckon it would have handled a few more .



Thanks for the reply mate, and the vids  
Timonade

Dean W wrote:
Timonade wrote:
Well. Basically an engine is as powerful as it's owner wants it to be.


Well, not really.  It is limited by it's design type and construction materials.  You will not get past
those limits, no matter how much steam you put into it.  At a point, the engine will just come apart.

Quote:

It's possible to move a car with a MM1 too, if properly taken care of, plus the transmission, heavier flywheel and a way bigger boiler.


You could, but it will not be due to the power of the engine in this case, and again, a bigger boiler will simply
de-construct the engine at a certain point.  To move something like a car with an MM1, you would need such a
great deal of gear reduction that the car would take hours to move a few feet.


Of course an engine is limited by it's design, but what I meant is that even a really big and powerful engine can and probably will stall when not properly taken care of.  

The car example, yes, is a bit over-exaggerated, but I'm sure a bit beefier slide-valve engine, from Jensen maybe, is capable of moving a child at walking speed. I mean, there was a video many moons ago, where a small steam engine (maybe a Mamod, but I could be wrong) moved a child on a skateboard... with a drive-band transmission...
MrDuck

That could easilly be measured with a potentiometer but for our use that is unnecessary as the driving force is dependent on the amount of steam a plant is able to continuously generate rather than maximal output which may be very short.

I've noticed while playing around that as long as a plant produces requiered pressure it drives anything the pressure allows while the capacity to reach said pressure may leave much to be desired.

Of course the size and type of cylinder, as well as the size of steamlines, matter.
       The Unofficial Mamod and Other Steam Forum Forum Index -> General discussion
Page 1 of 1