Re: Re: Just how efficient were steam-powered tractors?

Posted by Grove r on April 26, 2002 at 07:24:11 from (161.184.19.201):

In Reply to: Re: Just how efficient were steam-powered tractors? posted by Bill from up north on April 25, 2002 at 22:01:33:

Another cost effective issue that hasn't been mentioned is fire tube boilers verses water tube boilers, the later being more efficient in terms of fuel used/recovery time. the old steam traction and stationary engins were of the fire tube design, and the steam recovery rate was low. Modern application use the secound type, with natural gas, etc as a fuel choice, which is cleaner burning with none or very little residue. Another issue with the "old" ones, is as was stated the man power needed to operate and maintane these units. If left unattended, and the fire left to die out, then the preperation for the next days work consummed valuable time, so a nite shift man had to be in attendance. this coupled with hauling water and obtaining fuel, wether it be fuel from the straw stack or trees from the woodlot, or coal from the RR depot, all lead to lots of manpower, on site. Whereas in an idustrial situation, all this changes, from a few days plowing or threashing, to 365 days of continuous use, day and nite.

Now if I were as smart as I think I am......Have a gooder, R.E.L.

Follow Ups:

Post A Followup Name: E-Mail: Subject: Re: Re: Re: Just how efficient were steam-powered tractors? Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL: Email Notification: If you check this box, email will be sent to you whenever someone replies to this message. Your email address must be entered above to receive notification. This notification will be cancelled automatically after 2 weeks.

TRACTOR PARTS	TRACTOR MANUALS

We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]