Bill,

I don't doubt that you and Guy are correct, but I can't
imagine that a can of water hung over a journal would have
any measurable effect on the temperature of the bearing.
I mean, a bearing can be hot enough to melt solid steel --
even 10 gallons of water heated to 212 degrees F would
evaporate before siphoning off all the BTU's represented
by that kind of an overheated journal.

No wonder that the Chinese water torture method of cooling
hot journals did not endure!

At 02:26 PM 2/27/02 -0700, you wrote:

Guy,
The can hanging on SP 5 is way to clean to be used for oil.
I got the name from a retired D&RGW engineer. Later the name was
confirmed by Fred Picker in his book _Railroading in Texas_. He
says:"...A device sometimes seen was the Keeley can, a water container to
be wired in dripping position over a hot axle bearing." he went on to say
" I remember the Keeley can because my father was said to have enrolled
for a course at the Keeley Institute in Indiana, a place well-known for
the 'water cure'." The can used the same idea as the small valves and
hoses over each journal on Vanderbuilt tenders. I have never seen
anything "official" about the use of water but I would think that the
water was just for cooling because the crew carried oil and tools for
repacking bearings.

Later,
Bill

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@...>
Sterling, Massachusetts

Tim:

Go look at any Shays in rigourous service, say Cass for instance. All
of the engines have been fitted with small diameter piping with a series
of petcocks and small lines extending vertically over every bearing in
the crank. Normal procedure when working hard is to check bearing
temperatures regularly when taking water or oiling around, and if
they're running the least bit warm the petcock is opened and a small
stream of water is allowed to run over the journal housing while the
engine is working to keep them from getting hot enough for the grease or
other lubricants to break down. (And yes I am a mechanical engineer, as
well as a licensed Professional Engineer in 3 states including WV, and
have put thermocouples on many of those bearings and that small stream
of water does cool the lubricant dramatically!)

Max
-----------------------------------------------------
email: m_robin@...

smail: Max S. Robin, P.E.
Cheat River Engineering Inc.
23 Richwood Place / P. O. Box 289
Denville, NJ 07834 - 0289

voice: 973-627-5895 / 973-627-5460
cell.: 973-945-5007
-----------------------------------------------------

Max, the top speed of the Cass Shay's is... ?

At 08:56 PM 2/27/02 -0500, you wrote:

Tim:

Go look at any Shays in rigourous service, say Cass for instance. All
of the engines have been fitted with small diameter piping with a series
of petcocks and small lines extending vertically over every bearing in
the crank. Normal procedure when working hard is to check bearing
temperatures regularly when taking water or oiling around, and if
they're running the least bit warm the petcock is opened and a small
stream of water is allowed to run over the journal housing while the
engine is working to keep them from getting hot enough for the grease or
other lubricants to break down. (And yes I am a mechanical engineer, as
well as a licensed Professional Engineer in 3 states including WV, and
have put thermocouples on many of those bearings and that small stream
of water does cool the lubricant dramatically!)

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@...>
Sterling, Massachusetts

a small stream of water is allowed to run over the journal

Max,

The question is, how small a stream? Certainly the water
supply available from a tender is large enough to cool a
journal -- but a can of water (of what size?) hung from a
small hook on a car side? On a swaying car side, as it rolls
down the Arizona mainline in 100 degree sunshine at 50 mph?
I don't think so.


Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@...>
Sterling, Massachusetts

At 08:06 PM 27/02/2002 -0500, you wrote:

Bill,

I don't doubt that you and Guy are correct, but I can't
imagine that a can of water hung over a journal would have
any measurable effect on the temperature of the bearing.
I mean, a bearing can be hot enough to melt solid steel --
even 10 gallons of water heated to 212 degrees F would
evaporate before siphoning off all the BTU's represented
by that kind of an overheated journal.

No wonder that the Chinese water torture method of cooling
hot journals did not endure!

Now let's see:

To heat one pound of water from 80 to 212F takes 130 BTU. To evapourate (CDN SP) one pound of water takes about 1100 BTU. Then there's the fact that 1 BTU = 778 FT.LB.

If there were 10 gallons (IMP) = 100 LB in a Keely can, that equals the potential to remove 100(1100+130)= 123,000 BTU= 100 million FT.LB..

Let's say there is 13,000 LB. on the axle and the coefficient of friction is .05 that results in a friction load of 650 LB and if the train is going 20 mph = 30 feet per second, this is 19,500 FT.LB per sec. This amount of water could remove the heat for 5077 sec.= 84 minutes.

Sounds within the realm of possibility that it could work? -for a while.

Al

Tim said:

I mean, a bearing can be hot enough to melt solid steel --
even 10 gallons of water heated to 212 degrees F would
evaporate before siphoning off all the BTU's represented
by that kind of an overheated journal.

The whole point of water cooling is to PREVENT the bearing reaching such
temperatures. A calculation of the BTUs in a journal at the melting point
is irrelevant (also, the journal is severely damaged at temperatures well
below the melting point). A dribble of water onto the journal box would
help keep temperatures under control, not cool a failing journal.
Calculating the ft.-lbs. of energy in a rolling car seems to me not
helpful either. As long as heat generation is at a low rate, much of the
heat goes into warming up the axle, wheel, journal box, etc. (by a few
degrees probably). Journal lubrication doing its job means little
temperature rise in the journal itself BECAUSE the rate of generation is
low enough to permit diffusion of heat into the solid surroundings.
And yes, as a metallurgist I do know something about heat flow.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history

Al, wow, color me impressed!!

A couple of minor points (1) Can we assume a 10 gallon bucket? That
would be a rather large bucket! (2) Your calculations imply 100%
heat transfer from the metal to the water. That seems highly unlikely
for water dripping downhill, does it not? What would be a practical
heat transfer rate -- 5% perhaps? More? Less?

I dunno. This has the earmarks of one of those "bright ideas" that
seem to make sense but no one ever does the math, as it were, to
figure out if it's actually effective. Perhaps as Max pointed out,
it does work for slow moving steam engines with unlimited supplies
of water. So someone thought hey, I'll just hang a can over this
freight car truck and that will do as good a job!

At 10:59 AM 2/28/02 -0500, you wrote:

Now let's see:

To heat one pound of water from 80 to 212F takes 130 BTU. To evapourate
(CDN SP) one pound of water takes about 1100 BTU. Then there's the fact
that 1 BTU = 778 FT.LB.

If there were 10 gallons (IMP) = 100 LB in a Keely can, that equals the
potential to remove 100(1100+130)= 123,000 BTU= 100 million FT.LB..

Let's say there is 13,000 LB. on the axle and the coefficient of friction
is .05 that results in a friction load of 650 LB and if the train is going
20 mph = 30 feet per second, this is 19,500 FT.LB per sec. This amount of
water could remove the heat for 5077 sec.= 84 minutes.

Sounds within the realm of possibility that it could work? -for a while.

Al

Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@...>
Sterling, Massachusetts

At 12:49 AM 01/03/2002 -0500, you wrote:

Al, wow, color me impressed!!

A couple of minor points (1) Can we assume a 10 gallon bucket? That
would be a rather large bucket! (2) Your calculations imply 100%
heat transfer from the metal to the water. That seems highly unlikely
for water dripping downhill, does it not? What would be a practical
heat transfer rate -- 5% perhaps? More? Less?

I dunno. This has the earmarks of one of those "bright ideas" that
seem to make sense but no one ever does the math, as it were, to
figure out if it's actually effective. Perhaps as Max pointed out,
it does work for slow moving steam engines with unlimited supplies
of water. So someone thought hey, I'll just hang a can over this
freight car truck and that will do as good a job!

The fact that a properly operating journal bearing generates little heat and that they operated in very hot countries without Keely cans indicates that this provision is for extremely limited use, probably just to get the train to the next terminus.

My calculation was just "ball parking" to see whether it was within the realm of reality that it could work. There is also a lot of heat transfer area inherent in the journal boxes, wheels axles etc. It must have worked to some degree or we wouldn't see it at all.

Al