PDA

View Full Version : Engine of the USS Monitor Finished.



Rich Carlstedt
02-13-2008, 07:01 PM
Sometime ago, JCHannum, and PTSideshow posted pictures of my engine under construction.
The engine ran on air last week and is finished.
It is a 1/16 replica of the real engine that was recovered 6 years ago from the deeps of Cape Hatteras
N.C. and resides in a tank in Newport News VA at the Mariners Museum.
No drawings exist except mine from years of research.
I realize it is not a shop project, but some of the setups to produce
this model were out of the ordinary. NO castings were used. It is all from solid, including the Y (steam feed) pipe
Smallest screws are 1mm (.039 ) and smallest square keys are .030 x.030 x .078.
Any screw made of steel is mine. Brass screws and .022 rivets (714) are the only purchased items.
There are 465 nuts in the assembly.
Bore is 2.5" and stroke on this 2 piston engine is 1.375
All Valves are fully finctional. That is 1/16 flared copper tubing you see.
The Engine Rev Counter ,Steam Gauge (.400" diam) and Clock are not functional.
I now have a web site with lots more photos if you're interested.
its at:
WWW.StationarySteam.com
note -the 'email" link there to me does NOT work....yet

I look forward to seeing Jim and Glen at NAMES this April !
and you fellows too!

Rich

http://stationarysteam.com/monitor/Penny%20Shot.JPG

tony ennis
02-13-2008, 07:11 PM
Absolutely amazing.

A.K. Boomer
02-13-2008, 07:27 PM
There are 465 nuts in the assembly.


I think you might have missed one:) And I say that with the utmost respect,

Unbelievable work Rich, its worthy of the highest of accolades.

Its a museum piece for sure.

IOWOLF
02-13-2008, 07:29 PM
Well done, good job.

BobWarfield
02-13-2008, 07:30 PM
Oh my gosh, it just takes the breath away.

Amazing.

BW

Hal
02-13-2008, 07:36 PM
Rich

Very grand.
Any idea the amount of hours involved in it. Are you going to do a write up on it.

How many HP did the original have.

Whats next. :)

Hal

nheng
02-13-2008, 07:40 PM
Beautiful workmanship !

Willy
02-13-2008, 07:46 PM
Good Lord Rich, words fail me, I'm impressed! Definitely something to be proud of, any idea of the number of hours involved.
Beautiful craftsmanship, to say the least. Give yourself a couple of well deserved ATA'BOYS!

hitnmiss
02-13-2008, 08:05 PM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(speachless!)

sconisbee
02-13-2008, 08:09 PM
simply beautiful!

JRouche
02-13-2008, 08:19 PM
Very, Very nice.. Simple words cant describe.. The best I can come up with is Im proud to belong to a group that has membership with these types of abilities... Thanks for posting JRouche

Tinkerer
02-13-2008, 08:21 PM
:eek: Fantabulous!!! Way :cool:

dalee100
02-13-2008, 08:25 PM
Hi,

This is not only a marvel of craftsmanship that is seldom seen these days, but the research that you had to put into this, is beyond compare!

dalee

Oldbrock
02-13-2008, 08:29 PM
You are truly amazing. This is THE FINEST piece of work I have ever seen. Awesome also comes to mind. How the hell did you make the handwheel?

wierdscience
02-13-2008, 08:35 PM
Gorgeous!:cool:

JCHannum
02-13-2008, 08:55 PM
Rich;

Congratulations on completion it is a beautiful piece of work, and I am looking forward to seeing you & it in person in April. I still want to know how you drill a curved hole.

Especially in light of another thread on the BB today, this is an excellent example of the work done by a skilled, dedicated machinist. Much of the time involved in Rich's build of this engine was in research into the original engine. There were no existing complete plans of the engine. Rich has compiled a very large assemblage of drawings, some of which are little more than a couple of lines, and interpereted them to make this engine model as accurate as possible. Rich traveled several times to the Mariners Museum to get details from the actual engine, and is involved in the restoration of the original engine as at this point, he is probably the most knowledgable person on this engine.

Rich's shop is nothing out of the ordinary, he uses Shooting Star DRO's for instance. Rich on the other hand is an exceptional machinist. When he shows you his work, along with the finished product, he usually includes a box of the usual "experiments" we normally throw under the bench.

BTW Rich, Fairchild Phase Shifter was the in motion timing mechanism I was trying to think of.

Furnace
02-13-2008, 09:15 PM
Wow man.....wow!! Thats beautiful.

Rookie machinist
02-13-2008, 09:22 PM
Awesome work man. Wish I had 1/8 of your skills.

Mark Hockett
02-13-2008, 09:23 PM
That engine is a work of art, I think we should all nominate Rich for the Sherline Craftsman of the Year award.

J Tiers
02-13-2008, 09:39 PM
Exceptional work.....

The sort of work that would be an inspiration, if it wasn't so intimidating........ :o

Mcgyver
02-13-2008, 09:57 PM
fantastic work Rich. all thats missing is a lot of how-to posts :) like making those elbows ???? thanks for posting it

x39
02-13-2008, 10:46 PM
Rich, that is completely over the top. Wow!

pntrbl
02-13-2008, 11:07 PM
Wow. That is so far beyond my ability it might as well be on the moon .....

SP

S_J_H
02-13-2008, 11:57 PM
Rich, truly amazing work! You are a Master Craftsman and have the masterpiece to prove it.

Steve

dfw5914
02-14-2008, 12:22 AM
Very impressive, amazing even. One of those things a person can gaze upon for extended periods and continue to note more and more little (impressive) details.

BadDog
02-14-2008, 12:43 AM
I don't know what to say, except that I am truely humbled to see such work. Words are just not enough...

Rich Carlstedt
02-14-2008, 12:49 AM
I am speechless to say the least. Thanks to all of you for the more than courteous compliments. You guys are too nice. Jim made me laugh when I read about my screwups, boy I have had enough of them.
Each one is a record of a mistake, and by studying them, we get better.
I have pulled LuLu's with the best !
My Lathe is a 10" Boxford (British Southbend), nothing smaller.
I am donating copies of my drawings to the Museum for restoration purposes, and also photos and details in a book for them. I plan to duplicate this effort and market it, but don't know how at this time.There is no information in any book, nor are there plans other than mine . (about 15 semifinished assembly drawings survived without dimensions and in poor shape) Remember, Folks, a war was on (1861)and the engine and ship were built in one hundred days, and it was the first all iron, all steam,turreted warship. All subsequent engines and ships were changed, and some were quite different. Many parts were made on the run I am sure.
In addition to the book, I will build a more simplified model and offer that as a construction article with plans in a magazine. I doubt anyone wants to build one as detailed as I did. he would have to be as crazy as I am.

The real engine weighed 35 tons and was rated at 300 HP.
Cruise turns were 60, but I have references mentioning 100 RPM .
The max PSI was 30, but the engine also had a condenser which would pull 14 PSI Vacuum, so the effective mean pressure was 47 PSI on the piston.
The Black "exhaust" pipe on top goes to the condenser (not modeled)
Because I was trying to show the Museum exactly what to expect, I made all parts ,external and internal , as accurately as possible
See this post on another BB to see some internal parts, like the piston

http://www.smokstak.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37639

As Jim mentioned, I spent hours at Libraries in the Smithsonian, the National Archives, The British Science Museum, etc. To gather any bit of info.I also have friends like Ray Hasbrouch and Bernie Denny, whose models are the only ones besides Ericsson's Patent model, of this engine. They were tutors from heaven, with help pointing the way for more information. Still it took 6 years, and several thousand hours of construction to get here.

I know I have to post my methods of construction.
I know that some things I do are abnormal, or out of the ordinary.
I like to think of simple ways to do things, that is why Jim mentioned the pipe and making internal elbows without special equipment.
If had a photo bucket account, I could do some of it I am sure. My website is new and my friend Ron is setting it up as I am useless around such stuff.
So I can't post those pics there.
Color code.. On the engine, the Satin Bronze stuff is Cast Iron on the real engine. I could not find a Foundry to cast my cylinder in iron, so I resorted to bronze. The Shiny bronze pipe is really copper on the big engine, as it could take the thermo shock and vibrations.

The engine is called a
'Vibrating Lever Engine", because the two side shafts oscillate about 90 degrees. In the 1800's, anything that did not complete a rotation, was said to "vibrate". Today, we refer to vibrate as a linear (straight line) motion

Rich

darryl
02-14-2008, 03:41 AM
That's a Rembrandt or Michelangelo or a Van Gogh- I am truly humbled to see that result. Absolutely beautiful. I think you have a standing nomination for an award.

Asquith
02-14-2008, 04:19 AM
Rich,

Stunning!

That photo takes the breath away. Thanks, too, for the superb photos on your website. I enjoy looking at the marine engine models in London's Science Museum, but the glass cases get covered with head marks from my trying to see different details. These photos are just the job.

The model shows what a fascinating engine it was better than any number of drawings and words. There's a lot to figure out. At first I thought it was a bad idea having the 'wrist pin' hidden inside the trunk. 'It'll never catch on', I thought, and then remembered IC engines.......

I noticed the beautiful little rev counter, so I've posted a picture of a bigger one in another thread (I didn't want to hijack this one).

Alguy
02-14-2008, 05:11 AM
WOW! then i am speechless... outstanding work.. been trying to figure out how you did some of the parts ,,, truly exellent work

oldtiffie
02-14-2008, 05:30 AM
That is 100% end-to-end awe-inspiring work, inspiration and dedication to detail Rich.

I can only echo what has been said so well by others.

Can you tell or preferably show us what machines and equipment - set-ups too - that you used to achieve this level of excellence?

I am sure that some of our newer members and/or those with small lathes or mills etc. would love to see it to see what is achievable with the right approach as you have so well demonstrated.

PTSideshow
02-14-2008, 06:13 AM
Excellent, Amazing, A feast for the eyes

Alistair Hosie
02-14-2008, 07:29 AM
Fantastic workmanship go to top of the classs :DAlistair

torker
02-14-2008, 07:32 AM
Gulp! I am in awe! Amazing work Rich!
This is such a cool place... all you talented buggers to learn from!

John R
02-14-2008, 08:36 AM
Great job. Congratulations.
John R

ammcoman2
02-14-2008, 09:15 AM
Must add to the many accolades from others. Amazing - 9.00am EST and there are 4 pages already.

The other thing you have is grit and a determination to have seen this through. That aspect, on top of the craftsmanship, is what sets you apart.

Thanks very much for sharing.

Regards,

Geoff

BillB
02-14-2008, 11:48 AM
Breathtaking!!!

I remember seeing the local TV footage and newspaper pics when the engine was recovered & moved to Mariners' Museum. Looked like a giant lump of rust & mud, the model is all the more amazing considering the condition of the original.

Sure hope we'll get to see this in person at Cabin Fever and the Mariners' Museum. 8)

The original sailors, both on the Monitor and the Virginia, were made of pretty stern stuff indeed to be working in close quarters with large steam engines and large steam boilers with shot raining down on the iron plate close over and around them....

BillB

BobWarfield
02-14-2008, 12:14 PM
The engine is called a 'Vibrating Lever Engine", because the two side shafts oscillate about 90 degrees. In the 1800's, anything that did not complete a rotation, was said to "vibrate". Today, we refer to vibrate as a linear (straight line) motion

Rich

Ah, so it's a wobbler then. A really darned big one too!

I look forward to some build pix.

BTW, a good way to get a book out is LuLu.com. They make it possible for individuals to produce books and sell them. I've seen LuLu books and they come out great. This would definitely be a worthy HSM book. I'd put both the full engine and the simplified version and as many build photos and techniques as you can. Sure to be a best seller as model engineering books go.

Cheers,

BW

Wirecutter
02-14-2008, 01:10 PM
That's just beautiful. Makes me feel like I've been doing all my work with rocks and sticks. I hate you. :D

Not only is it beautiful work, but as ammcoman said, the patience and determination required to create the drawings and then build it must have been phenominal.

-Mark

JCHannum
02-14-2008, 01:38 PM
Ah, so it's a wobbler then. A really darned big one too!

BW
It is not a wobbler per se, the cylinders do not move. It is an opposed cylinder engine with slide valves. The "vibrating" motion is converting the straight line action of the piston rods to the rotation of the prop shaft.

Hopefully, someone can get a video of it in action, I am sure the motion is impressive.

hoof
02-14-2008, 02:08 PM
WOW. What

goose
02-14-2008, 02:18 PM
I mostly lurk and don't post often. But the things I see here are often nothing less than amazing.... Beautiful !

Gary

mlucek
02-14-2008, 03:35 PM
WE'RE NOT WORTHY !!!

To quote a worn-out phrase. Outstanding craftsmenship. That Y pipe looks just like a casting. sheesh the work in that alone ......:eek: The cylinder heads are even pitted to look like castings ! WOW WOW WOW, very high WOW factor !

FYI - there's many more pictures of the engine at his site :

http://www.stationarysteam.com/monitor.html

Mike

tattoomike68
02-14-2008, 03:41 PM
My goodness! :eek: everything I make is ugly as hell!

Thats amazing, I hope I live long enough to be able to make something half that good.

Peter S
02-14-2008, 05:21 PM
Rich,

Very nice engine! What an impressive project.

I wonder if you can fill us in on any technical details of the original engine? I have a few brief bits from my books, but nothing much. I am sure you have plenty of good info on this engine and its development by now, please correct any mistakes here.

Apparently it had two 40" cylinders and developed 400ihp. Both connecting rods fitted to the single crank pin.

The engines were of the type patented by John Ericsson in 1858. It sounds as though Ericsson used this type of engine for several screw-driven ships and it developed into a general type used in Monitor and similar vessels. Other builders are mentioned as using the design as well. An earlier ship "Princeton" used the same type of engine, but "the pistons vibrated to and fro like a door moving on its hinges" - apparently a design which didn't require trunk pistons.

Just looking at the photos of the parts, it seems like the guide area in the cylinder head is of quite short length to act as a good guide for the trunk?

I am curious about the centre "head" - I wonder how this fits into the cylinder? Are the cylinder bores stepped at their inner ends to provide a flange for this centre head to bolt to?

I presume each cylinder is double-acting?

The eccentric rod brasses seem a curious design, I wonder if this is all done to save weight, or it there some other reason for the design?

When it is running, I am guessing the pistons follow each other pretty much, i.e. work in the same direction?

The reversing gear looks very interesting, I am guessing the eccentrics are moved around the shaft when the bevel gear is rotated? Is the bevel gear and its actuating mechanism rotating with the shaft while the engine is running?

I hope you don't mind so many questions!

There is a drawing of this engine in "Steam At Sea" by Denis Griffiths, a plan and end view of the assembled engine. The end elevation is from the valve end, but shows the hidden detail of the crank and connecting rods etc as hidden detail.

BTW, Internet Explorer crashes about 75% of the time when I look at the photos on your website - not sure if it is just me?

There is always some "clever dick" in the crowd - would it be cheeky to ask if the odd-length studs and bolts on the valve chest are made as per the original too? I bet they didn't have time to worry about details considering Monitor was put into action with hardly any trials at all.

Rich Carlstedt
02-14-2008, 07:07 PM
Wow, the questions and i will try to answer all of them
If you guys don't mind, I would like to answer them with CAPS on for the first word.....helps keep them seperate and allows me to retrace my steps.
----------------------------------------------------
But first---thanks Bob for the link about LULU..here i used that exact word, and had no idea it is a printing resource !
Now on to Peters Questions:
-----------------------------------------------------
Apparently it had two 40" cylinders and developed 400ihp. Both connecting rods fitted to the single crank pin. --NO, the 40 " pistons were rated at 300 Total HP, seperate wrist pins in the pistons were linked through piston rods to the lever shafts to connecting rods to a single Crank pin
-----------------------------------------------------
The engines were of the type patented by John Ericsson in 1858. ---YES, (P# 20,782)except he patented the "Vibrating Lever Engine" which had cross heads and guides far outboard of the Rocking Shafts, and normal piston rods.....His patent was not for a Trunk Engine (hollow tube with piston rod moving in an arc and a wrist pin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds as though Ericsson used this type of engine for several screw-driven ships and it developed into a general type used in Monitor and similar vessels. Other builders are mentioned as using the design as well. An earlier ship "Princeton" used the same type of engine, but "the pistons vibrated to and fro like a door moving on its hinges" - apparently a design which didn't require trunk pistons.----HISTORIANS are totally screwed up with the terms.
We are talking about 3 different designs! The Princeton(1842) used a Windshield wiper motor design, or WigWag Steam Engine. Don't forget, Ericsson was heavy into Hot Air engines in the 1840 & 50's and had all sorts of designs. In 1858, He patented the Vibrating Lever Engine (with solid piston rods and cross heads)These were used in several ships like the DAYLIGHT , or the JUDITH. These engine were much too wide for the MONITOR, so he went to a Trunk design and reduced the width by about 4 feet (my guess)
-------------------------------------------------------
Jit seems like the guide area in the cylinder head is of quite short length to act as a good guide for the trunk? ---- YES, but the trunk is 13.5" in diameter and gives a large "diametrical" area for support
----------------------------------------------------------
I am curious about the centre "head" - I wonder how this fits into the cylinder? Are the cylinder bores stepped at their inner ends to provide a flange for this centre head to bolt to? ---YES, cast into the cylinder for the centerheads to sandwhich onto.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I presume each cylinder is double-acting?---- YES
----------------------------------------------------------
The eccentric rod brasses seem a curious design, I wonder if this is all done to save weight, or it there some other reason for the design? ---YES, it is a strong lightweight design. The valves on the real engine weigh 800 pounds each, and the compact engine had to produce as much HP as possible so the rods have a wide range of adjustment
------------------------------------------------------------
When it is running, I am guessing the pistons follow each other(s) .. direction?--NO, this engine is unlike Any I have ever seen. The timing is 80 and 100 deg respectively so you get a chuff..chuff......chuff..chuff...weird but neat
------------------------------------------------------------
The reversing gear..... I am guessing the eccentrics are moved around the shaft when the bevel gear is rotated? Is the bevel gear and its actuating mechanism rotating with the shaft while the engine is running?----ABSOLUTELY, the two front eccentrics slip on the shaft and they are fastened to the pinion gear the Pinion gear can move 180 degrees before it hits a key . The key drives the gear, which drives the eccentrics.
(The key is pushing the eccentrics in the direction they should move)
The quadrant gears are fastened to the shaft and linked to a throwout bearing (like in an auto's clutch). When the bearing pushes in, the spinning Quadrant gears rotate them selves AND the pinion gear and ADVANCE the Pinion gear off the key ( so the Quad gears are driving the eccentrics at that moment-not the key). When the pinion/eccentrics are advanced 90 degrees, the engine is technically in reverse, and the main shaft and reversing shaft change direction , which brings the Key on the shaft around the other way, and then IT drives the pinion/eccentric in the reverse direction.
------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you don't mind so many questions!---NAAAH
------------------------------------------------------------
There is a drawing of this engine in "Steam At Sea" by Denis Griffiths, a plan and end view of the assembled engine. The end elevation is from the valve end, but shows the hidden detail of the crank and connecting rods etc as hidden detail.--WOW>>I didn't know that.! have to get the book It sounds like it may be the drawing posted in 1864 in NATIONS PRESS. Does it have a handwheel where my steam gauge is mounted ?...I bet.. because the artists conception is a little off as well as accuracy . If not,it may be a new print
--------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, Internet Explorer crashes about 75% of the time when I look at the photos on your website - not sure if it is just me?..SOUNDS like a RAM problem. My pictures are full size, because of the detail and it may affect low RAM machines. I know Mozilla shrinks the pictures without asking to fit RAM
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Are) the odd-length studs and bolts on the valve chest made as per the original ? ABSOLUTELY --- Those are 0-80 (.060) x .280" studs with real lands in the middle.I came up with a way of making them in about 4 minutes each. a stud took me 1/2 hour when I first tried it in my 10 inch Boxford

Rich.

Your Old Dog
02-14-2008, 09:11 PM
Simply beautiful !

PolskiFran
02-14-2008, 10:58 PM
Beautiful work as always. I'm glad I got pictures at CFE between the crowds milling around this beauty.

Thanks,
Frank

john hobdeclipe
02-14-2008, 11:20 PM
I'm completely blown away by this.

Peter S
02-14-2008, 11:26 PM
Rich,

Many thanks for answering all my questions!

Can you recommend any book that covers Ericsson and this (and his other) engines well? Otherwise, I hope you someday get a chance to write up your research - I would be very interested to read it.

I will post the drawing I mentioned, but have no means of doing so at present - hopefully in the next few days I will manage it. Now that I look closer, the drawing does appear a little different from your model. There is a hand wheel right in the centre of the engine. The valve chest area looks a bit different. It appears to have two seperate exhausts and it looks like boiler steam enters through a single pipe directly above the hand wheel in the centre of the valve chest area.

The book I mentioned has quite a few drawings and info on early engines, well worth getting this one.

Rich Carlstedt
02-14-2008, 11:39 PM
Peter
Yes, I plan to do a book on the engine, since there is no record of its construction, and in fact there is a lot of mis-information.
Books have reported the bore as 40 (correct),36,32", and the stroke as 26,24 and 22"(correct). It frequently is confused with the Princeton engine.
Horse Power is reported as 300 (correct) and 400.
Speed reports vary from 5 knots to 9 knots
Even the tonnage varies from 900 tons to 1385
I don't have all the answers, but believe I can help keep some of it straight.
Rich

Rich Carlstedt
02-15-2008, 01:22 AM
I have answered questions on the Y Pipe and its construction.
Look for a new thread titled

Producing an Internal Bore Around Corners Without Tooling

or http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=27587

Rich

lazlo
02-15-2008, 02:15 PM
There's nothing I can add to what has already been said, but I'm simply astonished by the incredible craftsmanship, and attention to detail, especially since you had to painstakingly research the design from scratch!

Your French Beam Engine is beautiful as well!



The engines were of the type patented by John Ericsson in 1858.
...
It sounds as though Ericsson used this type of engine for several screw-driven ships and it developed into a general type used in Monitor and similar vessels. In 1858, He patented the Vibrating Lever Engine (with solid piston rods and cross heads)These were used in several ships like the DAYLIGHT , or the JUDITH. These engine were much too wide for the MONITOR, so he went to a Trunk design and reduced the width by about 4 feet (my guess)


The Wikipedia entry says that John Ericsson design the entire ship as well -- is that correct?

I was a hard-core wreck diver in the '90's, when I lived in Maryland. Gary Gentile, a very famous deep-water wreck diver, gave a talk to our dive club, the "Atlantis Rangers" in 1990 about the bizarre legal battle he had just won against NOAA, for the right to dive on the Monitor.

The story of the wreck, it's discovery by Duke university, and the NOAA legal battle is a really interesting story:

The Monitor: Americas Socialized Shipwreck
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=1556

"However, the U.S. Navy knew the approximate location of the Monitor. But without adequate financing for an in-depth survey, the Navy was unable to find the wreck.

The Navy’s primary concern was not who got credit for the find, but that the shipwreck be found. In 1953, to provide incentives for the private sector to conduct scanning operations, the Navy struck the vessel from the Naval Register and abandoned all salvage claims.

For two decades a veritable flotilla searched the shoals off Cape Hatteras, but it was not until 1973 that the Duke University research vessel Eastward located and tentatively identified the remains of the Monitor 16 miles offshore. The following year the site was revisited, and positive identification was obtained when the research vessel Alcoa Seaprobe took several thousand underwater pictures which were assembled into a photomosaic by Navy specialists.

Almost immediately, several government agencies began vying for control of the Monitor wreck. The winner was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under the auspices of the Department of Commerce. Although the ironclad did not fit the criteria of any Act of Congress, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act was the shielding mechanism deemed most appropriate. The Monitor became a sanctuary in the middle of a one-mile diameter tract of sea bed and the accompanying column of water. It was designated the first marine sanctuary, and came to be known as the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (MNMS). The Monitor had at last found a home—or was it a jail?

The Monitor as a marine sanctuary lies on shaky ground—and in legally turbulent water. By international agreement, territorial rights extend to 12 nautical miles from the mean high water mark. In this respect, the U.S. generously claims only three miles of territorial waters. In either case, the Monitor resides on land not owned by the U.S., and which is outside U.S. jurisdiction.

In addition, because the wreck was legally abandoned, its status falls under the common law principle of the maritime law of salvage, which, although expressed by various judges in different forms, generally provides that “the finder or salvor of abandoned property at sea who first reduces that property to his possession may keep that property.” (Treasure Salvors III case) in the 1981 Cobb Coin case, U.S. District Court Judge James Lawrence King further stipulated that “salvage law permits one whose salvage efforts are continuous and reasonably diligent to work a wreck site to the exclusion of others.” In other words, the backers of the Eastward expedition could have kept a substantial claim over the wreck had they continued to work it. Since they did not, the wreck is unclaimed property. Anyone may salvage it.

Anyone, that is, except U.S. citizens. They are not even allowed to look at the wreck, much less recover anything from it. "

Rich Carlstedt
02-15-2008, 02:48 PM
Lazlo
Fabulous report.
I had no idea that the wreck site was an issue . I thought it odd, that the site was beyond the 12 mile limit, and yet has USA Protection.
I was told (could be error) that the ship still was on the US Navy rolls.
When they brought the Turret up and it was at the Museum, being "conserved" , an American flag was at half staff , flying next to the turret. They had just found the remains of two sailors and were collecting the remains for NAVY DNA identification. I was offered by the Curator to go inside the turret during my visit(He knew my work) but I declined, feeling it was "Holy Ground" at that time. What I was told, was that the ship was never "decommissioned".
Thank You Lazlo.
Yes, John Ericsson designed the entire ship !
He made monumental engineering accomplishments with it's design.
Among them were:
The first all Iron warship
The first Steam only warship ( disobeyed Navy Reqs for "Sails" !)
The first revolving turret with Cannons ( H.Timby laid claim, but Ericisson had proposed it years earlier)
Steam powered Turret (Timby had no power source), with Periscopes !
Anti recoil Gun carriages
Compact Steam engine ( Navy engine were 3 to 4 times that size )
Forced air ventilation using steam powered blowers ( boiler control too)
Up Flush Marine Toilet (used below water line !)
Centrifical Water Pump.
He designed everything, except the Dalgren Cannons.
Don't forget, he invented the screw propeller, which the Monitor also had.
He was simply a genius..They built the entire ship from scratch with all its innovations in 100 days !..He made drawings from dawn to dust with all the data in his head.

oil mac
02-15-2008, 06:50 PM
Truly lovely example of craftsmanship & dedication, of the highest standard, you have created an engineering masterpiece which should inspire us all to achieve better work, As well as such, you have recorded for posterity an example of a fine ancestor of the great engines of the worlds enormous battleships Now youngsters can look at your model and understand what the time worn relic taken from the bottom of the seas looked like when new, and wonder also at the workmanship of our long departed engineering brothers as well Thank you for sharing your example of such high art with the group

A.K. Boomer
02-15-2008, 09:49 PM
Don't forget, he invented the screw propeller, which the Monitor also had.
He was simply a genius..They built the entire ship from scratch with all its innovations in 100 days !..He made drawings from dawn to dust with all the data in his head.


Good god, thats astonishing to say the least ---- Im convinced some of the best minds have already been here long ago, Iv reconditioned enough older things and cannot believe what some of those blokes pulled off, My sisses national cash register that i brought back to life comes to mind, I really dont think we have guys today that could make levers, pivots, eccentrics, intermittent gears, cams, sprags, springs, linkage and all the other crazy stuff behave in harmony and without a glitch (most of the time) like they did.
I can just see some kid today trying some of this stuff out on CAD --- and then taking his own life:p

Those guys lived it.

Rich Carlstedt
02-15-2008, 10:31 PM
Peter
I re-read your post, and that is indeed the description of the engine that appeared in 1864 in Nation's Press, a weekly publication.
It also was printed over two years after the Monitor sunk (12-31-62) and
had a number of graphic errors, but was for many years considered to be "the" engine. This was probably do to an artist trying to remember what he saw earlier, or a verbal description gone awry..


The ship sunk fellows because the Navy did not listen to Ericsson.
The 100 ton turret was lifted with a wedge so that it could rotate.
Two sailors with sledge hammers would beat the wedge. the 100 Ton turret (20 ' dia x 9 'tall 7 or 8 inches thick) would rise up enough to rotate, yet one layer of one inch plates stayed in a brass ring like a keyed assembly.
When seated in the groove, any water leaks were easily handled by 5 bilge and water pumps.
The Navy left the turret up and stuffed Oakum into the groove against Ericsson's orders/recomendation.
A wave knocked out 20 feet of oakum 3/4 inch thick and the resulting tidal waves of water sunk the ship in a storm
Rich
Proving, Simple things can screw up the best of intentions.

Orrin
02-16-2008, 09:48 AM
Rich has already listed many of John Ericsson's inventions; but there is one more I'd like to point out. He also was a pioneer in locomotive design. In this particular area he got screwed.

I've mentioned it on another forum and will also mention it, here. I recommend anyone interested in the man to read Ruth White's Yankee from Sweden. You'll find 39 copies available on the Advanced Book Exchange:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=White&sts=t&tn=Yankee+from+Sweden&x=72&y=12

I started loaning mine out but it kept getting passed on from one reader to the next; it is that good. I had to buy another for my own use.

Best regards,

Orrin

lazlo
02-16-2008, 10:09 AM
Don't forget, he invented the screw propeller, which the Monitor also had.

Actually, James Watt, of steam engine fame, invented the screw propeller. Apparently John Ericsson invented the use of twin props.

Rich's post enticed me to read more about John Ericsson and the design of the Monitors (there were apparently dozens built during the Civil War).

One "feature" that amused me was that the turret on the original Monitor was so heavy, that once the crew got it moving (to aim the gun), they couldn't stop it. So at the Battle of Hampton Roads, the crew had to fire the Dahlgren gun while the turret was moving past the target :) On the two sister ships, the Galena and New Ironsides, Ericsson added a inertial damper so the crew could stop the turret to fire.

The other strange part of the Monitor's history is that during World War II, the US Navy mistakingly identified the wreck of the Monitor as a German submarine, and depth-charged the wreck (!?)

Rich Carlstedt
02-16-2008, 12:44 PM
Lazlo
Yes, the depth charges did a lot of damage also.
Oh Boy is that a cess pool... The discussion over who invented the screw prop.There are just many hands in the pot, starting back at Achimedies.
I think Ericsson gets the crdeit because he used his ideas in practical form.
I know "Smith" used a "auger" type prop( single blade), so it is a screw style, while Ericsson had individual blades, but I will let you guys work it out.
You may wany to read this from Rochester University.

http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/stevens/screw.htm

Side note.
I have had inquieres into he size of the engine. On the Web site
WWW.StationarySteam.com
Is a picture of the engine with a penny, for size comparison.

But this morning, (requested ) I went out to the shop, and realised that the cylinder, LESS flanged ends, was the same size as a pop can.
So there is a comparison for those who wish to know.

Rich

jkilroy
02-16-2008, 03:49 PM
Great work, when do you start on the scale model to put that in? Working with RC control of course!

Peter S
02-17-2008, 04:54 AM
Rich,

Here is the image I mentioned in a previous post. Let me know if you would like a higher resolution.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/PeterS/S6300789.jpg

Peter N
02-17-2008, 06:44 AM
Stunning work Mr Carlstedt, very nicely done indeed.
You have both skill and patience in abundance in that project.

Peter

Peter S
02-17-2008, 05:23 PM
Rich,

I am wondering about the original engine that has been salvaged - what is its condition now? Does much detail survive, e.g any of the valve gear or 'vibrating' parts etc? Were you able to get near it to check measurements etc? Thanks for any help.

Rich Carlstedt
02-18-2008, 12:01 AM
Peter
The Engine is completely covered in barnicals.
A few places are bare, but the ravages of the sea are unique.
All Cast Iron and Brass survived magnificently.
I assume pure iron did as well, however, any "Forged Steel" parts are in critical condition.
The seawater (as i understand it ) leached out the carbon and the forged steel looks very much like old wooden
telephone poles and the metal when exposed crumbles in one's hands.(like rotten wood)
The curators have placed in a a tank with special treatment water citculating and a electrical charge of several volts
is applied to stabilize the metal and reverse the cloride (salts) concentration

Dimensions are none existant, other than the Trunk , which was confirmed to be 13.5" in diameter.
I have also requested that the Museum look in certain areas, to confirm my earlier findings,
like whether the piston rod had 2 oil cups. or one. (my research said 2 ) but almost everything else is too disguised to tell.

I did make one adjustment however.
When I made the first set of quadrant gears, I used cast Iron, then upon seeing the engine,
I realised that Bronze was used, so I remade the parts. This wasn't too critical, because after all,
I used bronze for the cylinder and valve chests, and they were cast iron on the real engine.
I could not get a foundry to cast the iron for me, so used bronze instead.
Oh,yes, I did learn one thing from the engine, the three way cocks are located differently than the later Monitors.

I will see if I have a picture taken through the porthole of the tank, that can be posted. the murky water makes it tough,
The Vibrating Lever shafts are all their, but very fraile.The engine looks pretty much intack as a hole. they are just afraid
to touch it after having a valve rod end disintegrate during inspection.
Looks like another 10 years in the tank unless they can come up with a new approach.


Rich

Rich Carlstedt
02-18-2008, 01:32 PM
Here are some photos of the Tank where the Engine was stored underwater,
until last year, and some underwater photos.
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj220/StationarySteam/Monitor%20under%20water/monitor1924.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj220/StationarySteam/Monitor%20under%20water/monitor1800.jpg
The above photo shows the reversing gear, and the three way cock. Remember the engine is still inverted from the time of sinking.
You can also see the throttle handwheel (Horz.) under the gears, and the drain cock on the far left center.
Now moving to the left, comes the view below, showing the bottom of the Translator levers and eccentric rods
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj220/StationarySteam/Monitor%20under%20water/monitor1779.jpg
Then a little more left, shows the Port Vibrating lever shaft, and you can see the two oil cups on the front bearing.
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj220/StationarySteam/Monitor%20under%20water/monitor1778.jpg
This view also shows the destruction of steel, note the bulkhead angle and it's state of condition.
Photos were taken in Oct of 2006

Rich

Peter S
02-18-2008, 04:44 PM
Here is a photo from a book "A History of Marine Engineering" by John Guthrie, in a chapter on screw engines he includes a model of an Ericsson engine, though it may be showing concept rather than exact detail?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/PeterS/S6300807.jpg

The author notes that it was impossible to stall on centres, because of the clever arrangement of the bellcrank and connecting rod angularity.

Rich Carlstedt
02-18-2008, 09:38 PM
Peter
Neat Posting.
The Monitor engine shown is the one in the British Science Museum in London.
It is actually a patent model made by Ericsson in 1861.
The Museum tells me that it was made in 1862, and presented to them in 1865. I say 1861, because thats when he made the full size engine.
The US Navy did not like John Ericsson ( The Princeton explosion killed the Secretary of the Navy years earlier, a grudge I guess) and when John Ericsson tried to give the model to the Smithsonian, they refused it.So He presented it to the Brits after the Civil War

What year was the book published that you reffered to ?

The Penn trunk engines were very popular. The " trunk concept" was created by James Watt, about 85 years earlier

Rich

Peter S
02-19-2008, 05:45 AM
Rich,

The book "A History of Marine Engineering" by John Guthrie was published by Hutchinson in 1971. It’s a great book, very readable, written by a marine engineer who apart from dry facts, has tried to answer questions such as how engines were built, how they were operated etc.

You mentioned the Penn engines - by coincidence three bulletins arrived today from ISSES (International Stationary Steam Engine Society). The bulletins often have something of marine interest as well as stationary engines.

In volume 29:1 and 29:2 there is a two-part article by Australian member Owen Peake, about a surviving John Penn & Sons engine from (probably) 1858. It is a two cylinder direct acting horizontal trunk engine of 60 nhp (250 ihp) and was originally fitted to a Royal Navy gunboat. In 1871 the engine was re-fitted into the "Xantho", an iron ship built in 1848 as a paddle steamer, but converted to screw when the Penn engine was fitted. The SS Xantho ended up in Australia in 1872, and sank in the same year. The wreck was found in 1979 and the engine salvaged in 1985. The engine weighed 7 1/2 tons when recovered, and was "heavily concreted".

Part 1 of the article gives some interesting history of these engines, for example there were many of this size built - around 75, between 1854 to 1856 if I understand the article correctly.

Maudslay, Son and Field built around 75 return connecting rod engines in the same period to the same specification (for small gunboats used in the Crimean War).

The Penn engines were capable of turning at 190 rpm, but not without lubrication difficulties. They also operated with high pressure steam - 90 psi.

Part 2 follows the preservation of the engine in some detail, and would no doubt be of interest to the people working on the Monitor engine. Various techniques for removing the concretions are described. Around 2 tons of concretions and chlorides were removed from the engine over many years.

Despite spending 113 years on the sea bed, the engine has been stabilised and is on display at the Western Australian Maritime Museum in Freemantle.

There was a large amount of work required in preserving the engine, but now the crankshaft can be rotated and the cylinder bores are in surprisingly good condition. One cylinder has been left empty so the parts can be seen. The wrought iron parts have suffered badly, but the cast iron is good (though heavily corroded) and the brass and copper is in good condition, including a brass maker’s plate. There is even a spare connecting rod.

There is also a 1:6 working (motorised) model of the engine on display.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/PeterS/S6300826.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/PeterS/S6300827.jpg

There is supposed to be info on the engine restoration at this website, but I can't get any response at present:

www.mm.wa.gov.au

Peter S
02-19-2008, 05:58 PM
The US Navy did not like John Ericsson ( The Princeton explosion killed the Secretary of the Navy years earlier, a grudge I guess) and when John Ericsson tried to give the model to the Smithsonian, they refused it.So He presented it to the Brits after the Civil War

It remindes me of a later feud which went on for 30 years between the Smithsonian and Orville Wright. Basically the Smithsonian would not accept the Wrights claim to priority in flight, so Orville sent the 1903 aircraft to the Science Museum in London in 1925. It was not until after his death, and when the Smithsonian had recanted, that the priceless treasure came to Washington in 1948. And if the Smithsonian removed the aproved sign and recognised any other aircraft as having been capable of powered, sustained and controlled flight with a man on board before Dec 17, 1903, the exectutors of the Wright estate could take possession of the machine again.