The Unofficial Mamod and Other Steam Forum

MTA · Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: Burners

With the Merstham show looming, I hope to get Victor finished before the show. The IP Engineering and PPS burners look the same, and are the same price. Although which has the longest burn time? I await your reply...
_________________
Si

"If the fascination engendered by locomotion at the present day is so intense, the attractive powers of locomotion in miniature must of necessity be greater still"

W.J. Bassett-Lowke. August 1911

Titan · Full member Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 685 Location: Derby

Cant say for sure, but there is unlikely to be much in it. The size of the tank is dictated by the space between the frames, and most burners are a tight fit so the tanks are probably about the same size. the other variable is how the wicks are set, and as this is influenced by how the user sets them, again probably not much in it.
_________________
It's a Mamod Jim, but not as we know it!

tmuir · Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:01 am Post subject:

I think the PPS burner has a screw on cap for the filling hole while the IP one doesnt. The IP one is unpainted and I think the PPS one is painted but can someone confirm that.
So in other words not really much difference at all.
_________________
http://www.freewebs.com/ozsteam/index.htm
http://members.iinet.net.au/~tmuir1/

A nice example of an Australian made Scorpion Donkey Engine

Graham-Jilly · Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:03 am Post subject:

I think they are basicaly the same
ive only had the ip ones so realy cant compare
_________________

http://www.freewebs.com/aclr

steamyjim · Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject:

The PPS one comes painted

I voted PPS

_________________
www.steamyjim.piczo.com

www.whitchurchlightrailway.piczo.com

CCairns · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject:

Having briefly discussed the subject of loco meths burners with Graham, during his short visit yesterday, and also having just got a Chasteam meths burner from Rob, I thought a little update would be in order.

I appreciate that wick height is very important, but both of the burners reviewed here have only just been fitted with the Mamodfan Wonder Wick, which still needs some trimming after some more use.

So here is a comparison between the IP Eng Meths Burner (which came from my IP Jane, and I'm assuming that they used to supply these to PPS who then painted them - perhaps our Mamod spare parts entrepreneur Mamodevon can confirm this), and the Chasteam Meths Burner.

This is the IP Eng Meths Burner, with mounting nut removed for clarity (I assume they were painted when fitted to the IP Jane).

And this is the Chasteam Meths Burner, again with mounting nut removed for clarity.

Although very similar in design and size, the IP Eng one has a slightly bigger tank (couple of mls) than the Chasteam one, and although the wick tubes are about the same position and height (Chasteam one foremost)-

due to the mounting point used on the Chasteam one it sits further away from the boiler (Chasteam on left).

The feeder tube is closer to the bottom of the wick tubes on the IP Eng one compared to the Chasteam one (Chasteam one at top).

Other annoying thing with the Chasteam one is it has a shorter threaded portion to mount it to the rear dragbeam, and I've been using needle nose pliers to get the nut fitted tight enough so the burner does not move.

I've been filling my Meths burners using a syringe, and whilst the IP Eng one has an open filler with a collar, the Chasteam one is a near flush mounted hole with threaded vent cap which is mounted further forward and I find it more difficult to fill when fitted without spillage (and suffered a huge fireball because of this spillage recently). I guess I'll need to try a using a funnel as others have posted above, particularly if I wish to refill the burner whilst still in steam and lit, without the ensuing fireball.

As I've said early, and will not doubt again be pointed out by other members, wick height is very important. However in recent trials, the IP Eng one burns hotter and lasts longer. So if money was not a factor then I'd buy the IP Eng one. Of course that cannot happen now, but hopefully Mamodevon will be able to offer his stock at competitve prices to Forum members (hopefully cheaper than the Chasteam one at £19.50).

Another issue I discussed with Graham is the blowback into the cab that you can get with these burners, ending up with a melted sight glass plastic. This is mainly due to the fact that these burners are fitted with the wrong size deflectors at the back, and there is a gap in the Mamod combustion chamber at the rear to allow the use of a solid fuel burner tray. What is really required for these burners is proper deflectors both at the front and back which are shaped to reach right up to the boiler underside. The MGM Engineering burner is provided with such deflectors that slide between the chassis plates to do just that.

If the current PPS Meths burner is different from the above IP Eng burner, then hopefully someone can post their findings here, for an equal comparision.
_________________
Chris Cairns.

http://www.freewebs.com/chriscairnssteam/
http://christophercairns.fotopic.net/