Want power? By yingle I'll give yeah power!
- Thread starter GN.2-6-8-0
- Start date
If only it was possible to get enough weight in to take advantage of that kind of power! Regardless...it has to be super cool to see two of the three sets of drivers slipping independently of each other. Very cool!
Wouldn't the brass add enough weight to do it? I don't know much about brass models which is why I'm asking.
In my experience, brass locomotives are usually too light. Not only is brass an expensive material...encouraging manufacturers not to use extra...but it is also much less dense than lead. Further, saving a little on the weight in each engine dramatically reduces the shipping costs.
I have one brass locomotive that is missing its lead weight, and it is really pathetic. If you pay close attention, you'll notice plenty of articles/tips on how to improve the balance and overall weight of brass locomotives. There are also plenty of articles on repowering them (although it looks like GN 2-6-8-0 doesn't need that
)I've been drooling over tungsten weights (50% denser than lead) or even depleted uranium as the perfect materials for models with coreless motors (which are way more powerful than can motors).
Growing up, my parents wisely chose not to get me the brass 2-8-4 that I really wanted. It was a shock to me to learn that many brass engines don't run well, can't pull very well, and some are horribly inaccurate. But then there are the brass models that run like dreams, pull well, and truly are works of art.
N
nachoman
Don't use depleted uranium unless you want to risk getting sick, or want kids with weird birth abnormailites
It is still radioactive, and I wouldn't want it near anything that I handle on a regular basis, or would ever want to grind, cut, or sand it in such a way that I would create dust or small particles that would find their way under my fingernails and into my mouth the next time I ate french fries Lead is bad enough. Interestingly, my nephews were putting together pinewood derby cars, and I noticed the weights they sell now are often pewter instead of lead. Kevin
Don't use depleted uranium unless you want to risk getting sick, or want kids with weird birth abnormailites
Kevin
There are some allegations about it, but environmental health papers from peer reviewed journals (scientific papers) say that there is no risk. Everything has a radioactive component...such as the C12-C14 ratio that is used in carbon dating. The most realistic danger to depleted uranium would be getting it into your blood stream...which would pretty much require getting it into an organic-uranium complex form...which means it is not a practical concern.
Also, worries about lead and mercury are greatly exaggerated. Mercury is harmless for the most part...unless you play with it for 20+years like a worker in the felt hat industry...or if you are a good enough (or is it bad enough?) organic chemist to convert it into a methyl form which is absurdly lethal. Lead is most dangerous to small children (whom can handle exponentially less of it). You could actually drop a small piece of lead into your wine if you'd like...just like they did in the middle ages...to make it sweeter and it won't really hurt you. It is more of a chronic risk than anything else.
I take a particular interest in heavy metals...they are very fascinating. DU is safer than either Mercury or Lead...which are less harmful than most people realize. In fact, most older buildings have lead pipes...or copper pipes with lead solder...both of which can contribute Pb into your drinking water if the pH changes much.
EDIT: very nice,, GN! Usually, one of your posts sends me over to ebay to check out 2-6-8-0s.
Nice locos...very nice.
..and thanks for the very informative post about heavy metal. Although not the kind of heavy metal I'm used to hearing about. :grin:
..and thanks for the very informative post about heavy metal. Although not the kind of heavy metal I'm used to hearing about. :grin:
N
nachoman
But 14C decays through beta decay, and 238U has several alpha decay steps. Alpha particles don't travel as far, but are far more destructive. If an atom of 238U was inside one of your cells, and decayed, it would cause damage. Your biggest risk would be from inhaling dust from depleted uranium, such as dust generated when a weapon with depleted uranium explodes.
I will agree the risk is minimal, and the risk from arsenic, lead and mercury is much greater. But we have recognized those things as pollutants and harmful, and have taken steps to reduce the exposure of the general public. Depleted uranium to me is no different. It IS radioactive, and I will take steps to avoid it if I can. Current studies may show no danger, but at one time there were studies proving no risk from cigarettes, leaded gasoline,and various other industrial chemicals now known to have made thousands of people sick. I can't avoid the lead that is in the soil from years of burning leaded gasoline, and I can't avoid the mercury in the soil left from industrial air pollution. But I can avoid eating fish that came from waters polluted with mercury, and I can avoid my exposure to depleted uranium. For hobby use, I am not willing to take the risk.
And as a side note here, myself being someone who has participated in the dailogue of peer-reviewed journals, I will agree that they are a better source than a newspaper or a popular magazine. But I have also witnessed that much of what gets published are hypothesis-driven conclusions, fabricated or statistically manipulated data (the infamous log-log graphs). And whose idea wins out is not always that of the correct answer but that of the author who has the loudest, most convincing voice, who can garner the most support through buying, schmoosing, or doing favors for peers. The scientific community is just as political as your least-favorite political party. I wish it werent that way, but it is. Trust me on this. As a grad student I was once asked to throw out data that refuted my advisor's published hypothesis. Rather than sell out, I dropped out of school.
Kevin
Amen! I totally agree! There are certain people within individual fields that most people won't dare disagree with. It seems that many scientists confuse philosophy with science. It stinks that you had to deal with some of that crap. One time I attempted to search for papers on vegetarianism...and it was impossible due to all of the spamming that the pro-vegetarian lobby does in the literature. Pubmed filtered most of that crap out...and I walked away viewing it as merely a comparable alternative to a normal diet.
I would like DU weights for my locomotives...but I suspect that the problem would come from obtaining them and that I don't have a metal shop :nope: to work on them. I agree that a mask is essential...as I don't like breathing in any particulates.
It is a shame that Tungsten is so costly, because it comes in convenient sizes for application to steam engines...but at $20 for 8oz. I want to be able to take advantage of coreless motor's extra power once I start installing them in locomotives...otherwise, they're sort of a waste of money.
Kinda interesting how this thread became one not about a locomotive, but more like a read about Material Safety Data Sheets. LOL!!!
Sorry GN...could you please post more pics! What do you have in your roster aside from a gorgeous 4-8-0, 2-8-8-2, and 2-8-8-8-4? That's one heck of a roster in and of itself! How about GN rolling stock? Has one of those S-2s found its way to your layout?
Looks like it has lots of places to squeeze in extra weight. I know its all the rage to hate lead weights these days, but frankly, you glue them inside the engine, close it up, wash your hands real well, and don't worry about it. Almost all paint had lead for years and years, and unless you are dumb enough to suck on them, they won't hurt you one bit. Same goes for Mercury in thermometers and dental fillings.
Here's a few pictures,,,have to admit a certain pride of ownership :mrgreen:
1. Q2 2184 leads Q1 2100 on to bridge no.7
2.E15 NO.1082 on a short caboose hop
3.Yellowstone no.227 rides the turn table
4 2-8-8-0 No.2023 slogging upgrade
5.F8 1182 with water car X3207 poses on the table weeks before retirement.
6.M-2 2-6-8-0 No.1973 fresh for the shops shows off her new glacier park paint job.
Attachments
Golly gee! Has anyone ever thought of just using plain ol' washers?? My wife bought some "vintage" passenger cars. The roofs were loose on all of them, so I set about to re-glue them. I was surprised to find rather large flat washers had been glued in to add weight.
I love that Yellowstone. It is SOOOO gorgeous.
Very nice pictures! Thanks for sharing!
EDIT: the problem with steel washers is that lead is close to 50% denser than steel...and far easier to work with.
Very nice pictures! Thanks for sharing!
EDIT: the problem with steel washers is that lead is close to 50% denser than steel...and far easier to work with.