Locomobile fuel path
Posted by: (---.dyn.iinet.net.au)
Date: January 16, 2008 06:17AM
A happy new year to all.
I had a marvelous start to 08, with a trip to NSW and inspections of the Doble, model K, 2 X 740's, 735, a 1916 -condensing Stanley-don't know model!:-( , a 07 White and 2 Locomobiles! talk about being spoilt!
One was a completed restoration (that ran very well) and the other a very original 01 stanthorpe.
Now, after my showing off, I have a question for the boffins.
All of the literature I have seen, including the drawings that came with my Locosurrey, as well as my experience with the WA museums 740, all tell me that the path for the pressurised fuel SHOULD be from Tank, through isolation valve, to Steam automatic, where a small amount passes unregulated for the pilot and the majority is regulated by the steam automatic, when it then goes through the vapourising tube and the through the jets into the venturi tube/s and into the burner....
all very logical to me.
Now, when I first spotted the restoration Loco, I traced all the pipework etc (as a matter of course) and I was surprised to find that the fuel came from the isolation valve and then THROUGH the vapourising pipework (obviously inside the burner assembly) and THEN through the steam automatic and then directly to the jets.
Now as I have previously stated, the car has previously,and indeed did on the day we had it out and about, run very well and the owners were very happy with its performance,
But I kept thinking that the steam automatic would have to be more effective at preventing LIQUID fuel passing than vapourised fuel.....
So I pondered......
Anyway, I then was priveledged to get to see another (very original) Locomobile, complete, but hadn't run for several decades, and again I dived under the car to get a good look at the plumbing systems and, you guessed it, it had the same fuel pathway.
So now I am stumped.
Logic is that fuel as a liquid is better for the automatic to be automatic with, and the thought of having vapourised fuel trapped inside the burner (which presumably, would increase in pressure as the temperature increased), -perhaps causing a backflow of vapouried/wet fuel into the tank and all the nasty implications that could have.......
I would appreciate others experience and thoughts,
locosurrey.