Kory Anderson's Case 150 At Rollag, 2019

GreasyIron

Subscriber
Numbers from the Prony Brake. The arm on the brake is 5.25 feet long X 950 pounds on the scale.
For those wondering how to use those numbers:

Torque [at the brake] will be just the 5.25ft X the scale reading. e.g 4988 (call it 5K!)ftlb at the 950lb.

The reason for the seemingly odd arm length is to simplify the Horse Power equation.

33,000ftlb/min is the definition of 1 Horsepower. 6.283 [2pi that is] is the conversion from revolutions [as in RPM] to radians.

(33000ftlb/min)/(6.283Radian/Rev)=5252 close enough to divide a 5.25ft torque arm and leave only a factor of 1000(lbRPM)/HP - making for easy mental math. So the force (scale reading) X the RPM (tach reading) and move the decimal three places.

950lbX180RPM/(1000lbRPM/HP)=171HP

It looks like a typo on line 21 - I didn't calculate the rest, but that one set off some mental alarm as I skimmed over it. Too bad they couldn't have made it to 1000lb without the belt slap, RPM and HP should have been equal!

Another odd observation, but anybody else notice that Kevin's name is on the paperwork? I presumed Kory was operating most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Hi GI and everyone else,

Good eye catching the error on line 21.

The line numbers below match the original worksheet. You may notice that line 20 is missing. If you look at the worksheet (or the picture), you will see line 20 is missing there, too. This is means the worksheet we used is a copy of the one Amos Rixmann gave us when he came to visit a long time ago.

line . . Pounds . . . RPM . . . . Hp

01 . . . . 100 . . . . . 236 . . . . 23.6

02 . . . . 200 . . . . . 225 . . . . 45.0

03 . . . . 300 . . . . . 204 . . . . 61.2

04 . . . . 400 . . . . . 200 . . . . 80.0

05 . . . . 500 . . . . . 190 . . . . 95.0

06 . . . . 600 . . . . . 184 . . . . 110.4

07 . . . . 700 . . . . . 192 . . . . 134.4

08 . . . . 800 . . . . . 190 . . . . 152.0

09 . . . . 900 . . . . . 182 . . . . 163.8

11 . . . . 400 . . . . . 205 . . . . 82.0

12 . . . . 450 . . . . . 202 . . . . 90.9

13 . . . . 500 . . . . . 199 . . . . 99.5

14 . . . . 550 . . . . . 193 . . . . 106.2

15 . . . . 600 . . . . . 188 . . . . 112.8

16 . . . . 650 . . . . . 190 . . . . 123.5

17 . . . . 700 . . . . . 193 . . . . 135.1

18 . . . . 750 . . . . . 192 . . . . 144.0

19 . . . . 800 . . . . . 192 . . . . 153.6

21 . . . . 850 . . . . . 186 . . . . 158.1

22 . . . . 900 . . . . . 184 . . . . 165.6

23 . . . . 950 . . . . . 180 . . . . 171.0

25 . . . . 700 . . . . . 190 . . . . 133.0

26 . . . . 750 . . . . . 192 . . . . 144.0

26 . . . . 800 . . . . . 184 . . . . 147.2

27 . . . . 850 . . . . . 178 . . . . 151.3

The highest power we measured was 171Hp on line 23. That does NOT mean the most power the engine can produce is 171. At that speed and that power, the belt was squeaking and hopping up and down. We decided that as long as nothing had broken and no one was hurt, we could stop.

Thanks to Kory and everyone involved for building the tractor and bringing it to our show.

Later,
Jerry Christiansen
 
Mr. Christiansen,
You do amazing work. Thank you for keeping Mr. Rixmann's tradition alive.
I hope you don't mind the following, just for fun and comparison. These are some of the "big" engine results from Winnipeg (source: The Winnipeg Agricultural Motor Competitions 1908-1913, by Rick Mannen)
Boiler pressures and rpm are averages over the half-hour maximum brake tests:

1910:
Avery 30 - double simple 7x10 - 189 #(psi), 240 rpm, 124.4hp
Case 110 - simple 12x12 - 157# - 225 rpm, 129hp
Rumely 36 - double simple 7-3/4x14, 176#, 243 rpm, 135.8hp

1911:
Avery 30 - double simple 8x10 - 179#, 281 rpm, 159.34hp
Gaar-Scott 33 - double tandem compound 6-1/2 & 10 x 11, 151.2#, 285.9 rpm, 150.72hp
Sawyer-Massey 115 - simple 12x14, 162.4#, 245.8rpm, 144.59hp
Sawyer-Massey 106 - tandem compound 7-3/4 & 12-1/2 x 11, 167.14#, 267rpm, 118.59hp

1912
Case 110 - simple 12x12, 175#*, 239.9 rpm, 144.22hp
Sawyer-Massey 106 - tandem compound 7-3/4 & 12-1/2 x11, 175#*, 235.9 rpm, 99.14hp
* allowable pressure

1913
Case 110 - simple 12x12, 147.6#, 222 rpm, 135.2hp
Sawyer-Massey 115 - simple 12x14, 158.3#, 238.4 rpm, 153.8 hp

Congratulations to Mr. Anderson on a job well done. That engine is a treasure for the world to enjoy.
 

GreasyIron

Subscriber
One more pain for brake operators, already doing a great job btw, but seeing the Winnepeg examples, it would be interesting to see pressure readings with some of Rollag's brake results. Of course, if adding that column with the brake readings, the top of the form could benefit from blanks for original and current MAWP as well. You know, just a couple excuses to make up new forms :D - though there is something nostalgic about using a form from long ago, especially with a moot error like a missing line! :cool:

As belt safety was the limiting factor in this case, purely academic, but it gives me an idea - albeit I'm probably the only person to find such experiment interesting and way too late to matter anyway. It would have been fun to see a max brake test done at say 2/3 pressure. Still a huge load, but I suspect in the realm of a 110Case rather than off the previous Rollag charts.
 

GreasyIron

Subscriber
I recall seeing on another thread here, or maybe elsewhere, that the 150's governor was acting up some during the Rollag show.

Is that the reason for the rather large steps in RPM on the recorded data? My comparison is only by sound, and with a threshing machine or saw mill at the other end instead of a brake, but over 20% drop off going from a light load to maybe half load is more than I'd expected.

A final curiosity on the RPM: What diameter is the pulley on the red brake? Better yet, what was the pulley ratio, or the 150's diameter too, so curious minds don't have to look up the latter? ;) Starting out at 236, I'm guessing rather close to 1:1, but if it was being sluggish, maybe Kory set it at no load a little above rated speed.
 

Ken Majeski

Subscriber
The Waters Governor is a whole different ball game as far as operating clearance between the valve and the housing. To get them to work right you need only a fraction of the clearance needed for a Pickering or a Judson. Must have something to do with the composition of the valve and the cage.

Specs that work fine of a Judson or a Pickering are a No Go for a Waters. They will overrun then when a load calls for power will be a day late and a dollar short. I was going to say something before but didn't want to rain on this thread :hide:
 
Last edited:

GreasyIron

Subscriber
Thanks Ken. I hadn't heard any specifics, so it could be exactly as you write.

I'm certainly not trying to detract from any aspect on Kory's successful project, nor the cool video of it in the brake initiating this thread. It's just fun to see what factors lead to a given set of numbers, not to mention fun to ponder what small projects Kory may be tweaking as they get the bugs worked out.
 
One more pain for brake operators, already doing a great job btw, but seeing the Winnepeg examples, it would be interesting to see pressure readings with some of Rollag's brake results. Of course, if adding that column with the brake readings, the top of the form could benefit from blanks for original and current MAWP as well. You know, just a couple excuses to make up new forms :D - though there is something nostalgic about using a form from long ago, especially with a moot error like a missing line! :cool:
Hi GI,

The line for the factory rated PSI is there. The brake operator needs to remember to get that value and get it recorded. :O 150 is written on the line, I believe that is not the correct value for the pressure Kory was running. I will take the credit (blame) for not asking the question and getting the correct value recorded.

Your comment about pressure points out one of the difficulties of getting consistent readings when pulling a steam engine hard. When the pressure drops, so does the power. When pressure drops, fuel needs to be added. Good firemen (or fire ladies) like to keep the firebox door closed when under heavy load. (I suspect that most people following this thread already knew that.) And thus the difficulty maintaining pressure under heavy load.

Later,
Jerry Christiansen
 

GreasyIron

Subscriber
Howdy Jerry,

Perhaps someday I'll learn better than to question the brake operator :uhoh: but seeing how even more years of marriage hasn't taught me when to hold my tongue, why should my fingers be anymore disciplined on the keyboard?! :rolleyes:

A good fireman certainly should know the ill effects of an open firebox door under load. But a great fireman knows that the fire needs tending before the pressure goes down, and knows where the next couple splits, or shovel of coal, is going to go before opening the door, and has no fear opening the door, during a continuous load, long enough to hit their target & get it closed in seconds instead of minutes.

Of course, it is a better fireman than I that won't still have a little variation, or trigger the relief, when trying to maintain max pressure on a varying load - which would be reason for pressure recorded at every line when proving an engine. Unfortunately, that would almost take another person standing behind the engine to record pressure as the brake numbers are read.

When proving the whole team though, the fireman's ability is in equal question, so set MAWP would be enough - still pressure tracking would be fun anyway for bragging rights or ribbing bait.

Line listed pressure would also allow fully testing engines with the potential for belt slip, or any dangers, at lower pressures too. But there again, I'm probably in the gross minority of folk who would find such experiment interesting. :crazy:

Just for complete records Factory MAWP is a curiosity. I still don't see on that nor current/set MAWP on the form posted though [my wife sometimes remarks that I'm deaf, so maybe blind too?] I see "150" on the Factory HP and Bore/Stroke [14X14 in this "Case" IIRC] lines. To the current thread, I think Kory has it at like 175psi, but that's on a rather fuzzy memory.

We only make it to Rollag every few years, and generally a single day to visit, so afraid I'm not volunteering. :bonk: Regardless, thanks for all you do, and keep up the great work! :cool: It's been some years now, but I have had the opportunity to feed Minneapolis 7700, while in the brake at maybe 40% load, briefly a couple times during Rollag's steam school.
 
Hi again GI,

Keep questioning. I am getting old. I didn't look close enough. You are correct, there is no line for pressure.

Good points about a great fireman and a few seconds of time.

Belt slip is another issue. Listening to the belt chirp as we were pulling leaves no doubt about belt slip. Even if if it can't be heard, the belt is always slipping a bit. What we are really measuring is delivered horsepower and torque. I wonder how much torque and power would be measured if the brake mechanism was mounted directly on the belt pulley of the engine.

And to think that Ken apologized to derailing a thread . . .
Oh well, it is all good conversation.

Later,
Jerry Christiansen
 

GreasyIron

Subscriber
Belt slip is another issue. Listening to the belt chirp as we were pulling leaves no doubt about belt slip. Even if if it can't be heard, the belt is always slipping a bit. What we are really measuring is delivered horsepower and torque. I wonder how much torque and power would be measured if the brake mechanism was mounted directly on the belt pulley of the engine.

And to think that Ken apologized to derailing a thread . . .
Oh well, it is all good conversation.

Later,
Jerry Christiansen
Yes, quite some tangents, but interesting nonetheless! A belt slip experiment, if somebody could find time, would be neat.

I don't see the set-up difficult. It would just take an electronic tachometer - like the ones that pick up a piece of reflective tape, or anything simple yet precise to 1RPM or less - at the engine. Then just record the ratio of engine RPM to brake RPM at no-load (yes, still maybe not absolutely 0 slip, but safe to assume close enough for baseline) and do the same at each load. Then 1-RPMratio@load / RPMratio@noload=%loss

Somebody might prove me wrong here, but that should be quite indicative of power loss due to belt slippage. It doesn't take into account torque loss, but since brake torque is used at brake RPM for power, I think lost RPM would be quite indicative of lost power.

For that matter, as long as the brake can stop the engine, I'd claim that torque isn't going to be under estimated due to slippage anyway, but will save that debate for another day! :)

Varying factors like belt condition/dressing, tightness, etc. would make a difference, but if adequate conditions to cover a good range without really squawking, I'd call the average of just a couple performances (perhaps from different days) good enough to claim an "assumed" power loss for a given (and probably even others of similar width/material/thickness) belt at the loads tested. If nicely linear, one could even extrapolate beyond the range tested, though I suspect that would be increasingly off at some point like when at the safe limits of the belt.

Later!
 
Interesting discussion, even though it may be a bit off subject.
Having witnessed and enjoyed Mr. Chritiansen's brake trials on several occasions, I will say that his results are very accurate.There is always some important information to take away from them.
Frankly, I have seen brake demonstrations at other shows that seemed to be designed to please the owners rather than to establish any qualifiable data.That is fine, and it puts on a good display for the general public.
The 1911 contests at Winnipeg must have been a pig to make work. It had poured rain and conditions were horrible They had to jack tractors and engines into the belts because they were slipping their wheels to get belted up.
Wet belts are different from dry belts also. That being said, the Winnipeg boys got 'er done!
 

Attachments

Mr. Christiansen had the 28 Toronto on the brake at Crosby but I didn't catch the numbers?
At Winnipeg, 1911, where the picture in post 15 was taken, the 28 made 103.31 at 156.14 psi, at 238.6 rpm.That seems to fit right in with the Rollag findings. It is a 10x14 simple.
It would have been something to have had the 150 Case and the 32 American-Abell (9 & 13 x 14) tested at Winnipeg!:O
 

Attachments

Good day Mr. Wilikers and others,

I think we gave the work sheet for the American Able to Mr. Tysse (spelling?) after we had it on the Blue Brake in Crosby.

If memory serves me we were measuring about 2000 ft-lb of torque around 120Hp when we quit. Sometimes when we are pulling hard we have a de-belting demonstration. Often that is followed by a re-belting demonstration. Occasionally the operator is tired and we decide to quit. At Crosby we had a belt breaking demonstration. Luckily, the belt fell pretty much straight down. It didn't take off one direction or the other. At any rate, after the belt breaking demonstration, the Abel decided to quit. The good folks at Crosby loaned us another belt so we could play for the rest of the weekend.

Now I need to find a person to do a belt fixing demonstration.

Later,
Jerry Christiansen
 

GreasyIron

Subscriber
Now I need to find a person to do a belt fixing demonstration.
Been there and done that on all scores!:bonk:
Before we made a whole new set of belts for the threshing machine, there were a couple years I told my wife "we're not putting on a threshing demonstration; we're putting on a belt splicing demonstration!" :eek:

Of course, those weren't endless; just "Clipper" spliced. Danube Upholstry used to repair drive belts, maybe still does, but not exactly cheap. I've heard of an Amish source, but don't have contact information, or even know who does. I've spliced exactly one, and it's holding well - but it is rather a pain; also, for doing just one, the glue I used was expensive, and I no longer have access to a heavy sewing machine to finish a belt job, so one was enough for me!

Good luck, Jerry!
 
Last edited:
Top