AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

SUCTION GAS PRODUCERS for MOTOR VEHICLES.

6th June 1918, Page 8
6th June 1918
Page 8
Page 9
Page 8, 6th June 1918 — SUCTION GAS PRODUCERS for MOTOR VEHICLES.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

The Type of Plant Required. How to Reduce Weight and Secure Satisfactory Working Results.

T. HE ARTICLE ia THE ComaiEncum, MOTOR of 16th May, with reference to the eihployment of

• producer gas on motor vehicles opens up a very • interesting field. In the article, the writer refers to a gas producer plant which was fitted to a 40 h.p. char-a-banes, but it looks very much as if the plant were not of the suction, but of the pressure type. However, to return to the subject of the application of suction gas plants to motor vehicles, this has a special significance just now. When petrol is obtainable one does not turn to substitutes, but, at the present time, when it is a case of not getting enough fuel to rim the vehicle at all, then almost any substitute has a chance of Consideration. The great objection to a. suction gas plant is its weight, but, in this connection, is it not possible that we might -be bound down too much to stationary engine practice and be trying to equip cars with a plant which is really too robust-, and certainly too heavy ? • There seems to be no reason why the producer should not be made with sheet iron sides. In an ordinary producer, of course, the shell is of cast-iron, but, in stationary practice, weight is of no importance, and very, often it is the best form of'construction. Then, too, the pipes, the scrubber, and the other accessories can all be made of, light gauge. material. The greatest heat is in the producer, and the body of this is adequately protected by the firebrick lining. The thinner tho connecting pipes are made the more radiation and the cooler the gas at the engine, which is a highly desirable thing. Tookey, in his useful book on suction gas plants, gives the size of grate area for producer as about. 3i. to 6 square inches per h.p. --In designing a producer for a motor vehicle it will be obvious that the 11..A.C. rating is not the correct one to take. Most engines only generate their full power for a very short percentage of their running hours. On the average, they run about 50 per cent. full load, so that, when designing a producer, it could be made for a horse-power about half that of the maximum of which the engine is capable, and it will then be equal to a. slight overload occasionally when the engine is running all out. The coke scrubber is a part of all stationary plants, but need it necessarily be incorporated in a motor vehicle plant? One is inclined to think that, with ample cooling pipes, the tar could be extracted satisfactorily in simply a sawdust filter, and so do away with an accessory which occupies a, lot of space and is very heavy.

The Possibilities of a Light Plant.

Summing up the above and, assuming a producer and plant made of light sheet metal instead of cast iron, the elimination of the coke scrubber, a small size producer, etc., there seems to be no reason why a plant should not be constructed which would give satisfactory results, and yet be of medium weight. For instance, with, say, a 30 cwt. vehicle, the plant complete with water should only weigh between 4-5 cwt. This would still give a useful load on the vehicle of 25 cwt. which would be far preferable to keeping the vehicle in dock for lack of motor fuel. With regard to cost, a suction plant running on anthracite, which is the fuel recommended, would use about 1 lb. per b.h.p. Assuming that the vehicle in question has a 20 h.p. engine, then 50 per cent, of this would represent the average h.p, given out., viz.,

10 b.h.p. The fuel consumption, therefore, would be 10 lb. per hour, or, say, 1 cwt. for atest run. As fuel costs approximately 28. per cwt., this is not an exorbitant figure. Of course, a suction plant will not be 'so convenient as petrol. In the.first place, there is the starting— a small fire must be lit in the producer with a bit of oily rag, and a few sticks, and then the fire must be blown up with a fan. Generally, this fan will be a hand fan. It may be possible to run it off the engine, and to run the engine off petrol to provide power, but, mostly, it will be hand operated. Then, when the fire has been going nicely, say for about 10 to 16 minutes, the gas will be tested at the try-cock, and, if satisfactory, the engine started up. It may be necessary to turn slightly more, often than on petrol owing to the possibility of there being foul gas in the pipes, but, given a eorrect mixture of gas and-air, thou; should not be much difficulty in starting up. When the vehicle is stopped for a short time it will pay to keep the engine running steadily to keep the fire in good order. When the engine is shut down, and the plant is left for any length of time, it will be necessary to blow the fire up again by hand before starting.

The producer Should be built so that fuel is only required to be put in every three or four hours. This will reduce the number of times fuel will have to be charged during the,:run. It is anticipated that a vehicle so fitted will have to have the plant cleaned out about once a month, the tar removed from the pipes, and new wood,wool put into the sawdust scrubbers, but this would not be a very big job when once it became part of the routine work.

Several people are already working on the applica,tion of gas plants to motor vehicles, and we hope shortly to publish details of some of these plants.

W.N.H.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus