Re: Materials compatibility
Sounds like my alky firing of the Ruby, so don't hold yer breath either. Botched up Geoff. Don't wait up for an update... I've had this in mind for well over a year >now. ;] No telling when/if it'll happen. If it does though it won't be a >simplified setup like Roundhouse uses, it's going to get lap and a working >combination rod! > >I want to be able to notch-up! > >Trot, the simply honest, fox... > >At 11:34 AM 4/3/03, you wrote: >>TrotFox, >> >>That is a quite a challenge! keep us informed! >> >>Geoff > > > > /\_/\ TrotFox \ Always remember, > ( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon\ "There is a > >\_/< [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ third alternative." >
Re: Materials compatibility
Don't wait up for an update... I've had this in mind for well over a year now. ;] No telling when/if it'll happen. If it does though it won't be a simplified setup like Roundhouse uses, it's going to get lap and a working combination rod! I want to be able to notch-up! Trot, the simply honest, fox... At 11:34 AM 4/3/03, you wrote: TrotFox, That is a quite a challenge! keep us informed! Geoff /\_/\ TrotFox \ Always remember, ( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon\ "There is a >\_/< [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ third alternative."
Re: Materials compatibility
TrotFox, That is a quite a challenge! keep us informed! Geoff Hey Spenceley, > >I have a length of .125" ID stainless that I just haven't installed yet. I >need the olive fittings so that I can get it in there non-permanent. The >only thing keeping me away from getting those is the desire to completely >modify the valve gear on the loco. ;] I have this idea that I can (with >help from a friend who's into robotics and custom lathe work) add slide >valves and working outside valve-gear to the Ruby. > >One of these years. ;] > >Trot, the idea-filled, fox... > >At 07:13 PM 4/2/03, Geoff Spenceley wrote: >>Hey Solomon, >> >> I really enjoy your comments to our group. (except for cats!) That is an >>interesting point you make,-- the steam chest on the Ruby is very similar >>to air operated equipment and it works very well. The quick response on the >>Johnson Bar (which it is not really) depends on the porting design in the >>valve chest. >> >>I like the steam chest in my RC Merlin Matterhorn for example, it is >>excellent for radio control, on, off and stop all with one servo. >> >>I know what you mean about the long line to the steam chest-if I ever alky >>my Ruby, I'll heat that tube. With the factory butane production, a steam >>line (with some modifications and SS,) could also be run down the center >>flue. That condensation is bothersome and it wastes a lot of water. >> >>Keep your interest up, >> >>Geoff. > > > > /\_/\ TrotFox \ Always remember, > ( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon\ "There is a > >\_/< [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ third alternative." >
Re: Materials compatibility
Hey Spenceley, I have a length of .125" ID stainless that I just haven't installed yet. I need the olive fittings so that I can get it in there non-permanent. The only thing keeping me away from getting those is the desire to completely modify the valve gear on the loco. ;] I have this idea that I can (with help from a friend who's into robotics and custom lathe work) add slide valves and working outside valve-gear to the Ruby. One of these years. ;] Trot, the idea-filled, fox... At 07:13 PM 4/2/03, Geoff Spenceley wrote: Hey Solomon, I really enjoy your comments to our group. (except for cats!) That is an interesting point you make,-- the steam chest on the Ruby is very similar to air operated equipment and it works very well. The quick response on the Johnson Bar (which it is not really) depends on the porting design in the valve chest. I like the steam chest in my RC Merlin Matterhorn for example, it is excellent for radio control, on, off and stop all with one servo. I know what you mean about the long line to the steam chest-if I ever alky my Ruby, I'll heat that tube. With the factory butane production, a steam line (with some modifications and SS,) could also be run down the center flue. That condensation is bothersome and it wastes a lot of water. Keep your interest up, Geoff. /\_/\ TrotFox \ Always remember, ( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon\ "There is a >\_/< [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ third alternative."
Re: Materials compatibility
Hi JR, Please you appreciated the details. I forgot to mention the super elevated curves we can use in Guage 1, and sometimes need if caught out by the "dwell time"!. Also, what is a "Diesel", are they allowed on this website!!!???. Best Regards, Tony D. At 04:40 PM 4/2/03 -0500, JR May wrote: Tony D: Fantastic write up. Simply fantastic. I am amazed at how things are the same from full sized down to Gauge 1. Especially the delay or dwell time you talk about. Prior to heading into the curve on the smaller full sized engines we run, you have to give it some throttle or you die in the curve. The shay is the most instantly reactive, our 4-4-0T has the longest dwell.The diesels (25ton and 55 ton GE diesel electrics) are real dogs. Throttle must be provided before hitting the full impact of the curve or there is a noticeable slow down.I believe this is due in part to the time it takes for the relays to kick in as the generator RPMs come up. Very mushy, unless you really give the throttle a pull. Great write up. Many thanks. J.R. - Original Message - From: Anthony Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:34 PM Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > Hi JR, > Really good feedback, and I recognise many parrallel "actions and > reactions" in my 10mm scale coal burners. > I run two coal burners, one is controlled 'by hand", which has only two > controls, one for throttle and one for the blower, with a slip eccentric > controlling forward and reverse. Has a dummy Walschearts valve gear. > The second engine is radio controlled, with working Walschearts valve > gear, and R/C controls for the throttle, blower, Johnson Bar and cylinder > drain cocks. Also have an Aster U1 which also has full Walschearts valve > gear, hand controlled, and can be run on coal or alcohol. >With the slip eccentric engine, without radio control, after firing up > to 80PSI and with a red hot fire, I add 2-3 loads of coal before release. > The running technique is to use both wide throttle (1/2 turn open) > throttle, and 1/4 turn blower for starting off with 6-7 coaches, and once > under way, reduce throttle to 1/8 turn on throttle and 1/16 turn on the > blower. This gives a steady speed with enough throttle and blower, to pull > the load out of the tighter bends after natural slowing, but not allow an > "out of control" speed on the straights, heading for the curves. So almost > a set and release driving method. When the pressure drops to 30-35 lbs, > which is typically after 3-4 laps of my 300' track. I stop the engine, load > 2-3 loads of coal, open up the blower for approx. minute or so, build > pressure to 45-50psi, close blower to 1/16 turn and release again. I have > one really tight curve which brings the engine to almost a standstill, but > the blast increases greatly under this load, and pulls the load through > the curve and up to straight line speed again, till the next curve. > With the UI, a 4 cyl. compound with Walschearts and hand controlled. > The Johnson bar is set at full position, with throttle 1/2 turn open and > blower at 1/8 to start off. Once under way, and after approx 200', the > engine really takes off as all the cylinders warm up. So requires cutting > the Johnson bar to approx 40% cut-off, closing blower to < 1/32 turn and < > 1/8 throttle to achieve the same constant speed as above. However running > on alcohol does not give the really noisy blast when pulling out of the > curves. The U1 is a really quiet engine for its size. Engine will "cruise" > at 40-50psi for several laps before pressure drops as the alcohol runs out. > However the R/C Controlled coal burner with Walschearts is a totally > different animal. It has a "hand throttle" which can be pre-set according > to starting and running load, before release. This hand throttle remains > open at all times in pre-set position while running. The R/C control on the > Johnson bar, for forward, nuetral and reverse are infinately notchable on > the left hand control stick. The throttle and blower are controlled on the > right hand control stick, with the initial 1/4 of stick movement > controlling the blower, the next 2-3 notches control the cylinder drain > cocks, and remaining stick movement controls the throttle. Which is also > infinately notchable. At firing up, the hand throttle is closed, R/C > throttle closed, and R/C blower is opened when pressure reaches 45psi. > At 80-90psi at start-off, the Johnson bar is set in fully open > position, the throttle is opened through the blower position and cuts it > off. The drain cocks are opened through 2-3 notches, > to blow dow
Re: Materials compatibility
Hey Solomon, I really enjoy your comments to our group. (except for cats!) That is an interesting point you make,-- the steam chest on the Ruby is very similar to air operated equipment and it works very well. The quick response on the Johnson Bar (which it is not really) depends on the porting design in the valve chest. I like the steam chest in my RC Merlin Matterhorn for example, it is excellent for radio control, on, off and stop all with one servo. I know what you mean about the long line to the steam chest-if I ever alky my Ruby, I'll heat that tube. With the factory butane production, a steam line (with some modifications and SS,) could also be run down the center flue. That condensation is bothersome and it wastes a lot of water. Keep your interest up, Geoff. As an interesting note, I have noticed the same thing on my R/C Ruby. >Johnson bar movements have an immediate response though, I suspect due to >the much shorter steam lines affected. No superheat installed on this >loco yet so all that line has to be filled/heated when the throttle is >adjusted. ;] > >Trot, the fox who wants _real_ valve gear...
Re: Materials compatibility
As an interesting note, I have noticed the same thing on my R/C Ruby. Johnson bar movements have an immediate response though, I suspect due to the much shorter steam lines affected. No superheat installed on this loco yet so all that line has to be filled/heated when the throttle is adjusted. ;] Trot, the fox who wants _real_ valve gear... On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, JR May wrote: > Tony D: > Fantastic write up. Simply fantastic. I am amazed at how things are the > same from full sized down to Gauge 1. Especially the delay or dwell time > you talk about. Prior to heading into the curve on the smaller full sized > engines we run, you have to give it some throttle or you die in the curve. > The shay is the most instantly reactive, our > 4-4-0T has the longest dwell.The diesels (25ton and 55 ton GE diesel > electrics) are real dogs. Throttle must be provided before hitting the full > impact of the curve or there is a noticeable slow down.I believe this is > due in part to the time it takes for the relays to kick in as the generator > RPMs come up. Very mushy, unless you really give the throttle a pull. > > Great write up. Many thanks. > J.R. /\_/\TrotFox\ Always remember, ( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon \ "There is a >\./< [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ third alternative."
Re: Materials compatibility
Tony D: Fantastic write up. Simply fantastic. I am amazed at how things are the same from full sized down to Gauge 1. Especially the delay or dwell time you talk about. Prior to heading into the curve on the smaller full sized engines we run, you have to give it some throttle or you die in the curve. The shay is the most instantly reactive, our 4-4-0T has the longest dwell.The diesels (25ton and 55 ton GE diesel electrics) are real dogs. Throttle must be provided before hitting the full impact of the curve or there is a noticeable slow down.I believe this is due in part to the time it takes for the relays to kick in as the generator RPMs come up. Very mushy, unless you really give the throttle a pull. Great write up. Many thanks. J.R. - Original Message - From: Anthony Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:34 PM Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > Hi JR, > Really good feedback, and I recognise many parrallel "actions and > reactions" in my 10mm scale coal burners. > I run two coal burners, one is controlled 'by hand", which has only two > controls, one for throttle and one for the blower, with a slip eccentric > controlling forward and reverse. Has a dummy Walschearts valve gear. > The second engine is radio controlled, with working Walschearts valve > gear, and R/C controls for the throttle, blower, Johnson Bar and cylinder > drain cocks. Also have an Aster U1 which also has full Walschearts valve > gear, hand controlled, and can be run on coal or alcohol. >With the slip eccentric engine, without radio control, after firing up > to 80PSI and with a red hot fire, I add 2-3 loads of coal before release. > The running technique is to use both wide throttle (1/2 turn open) > throttle, and 1/4 turn blower for starting off with 6-7 coaches, and once > under way, reduce throttle to 1/8 turn on throttle and 1/16 turn on the > blower. This gives a steady speed with enough throttle and blower, to pull > the load out of the tighter bends after natural slowing, but not allow an > "out of control" speed on the straights, heading for the curves. So almost > a set and release driving method. When the pressure drops to 30-35 lbs, > which is typically after 3-4 laps of my 300' track. I stop the engine, load > 2-3 loads of coal, open up the blower for approx. minute or so, build > pressure to 45-50psi, close blower to 1/16 turn and release again. I have > one really tight curve which brings the engine to almost a standstill, but > the blast increases greatly under this load, and pulls the load through > the curve and up to straight line speed again, till the next curve. > With the UI, a 4 cyl. compound with Walschearts and hand controlled. > The Johnson bar is set at full position, with throttle 1/2 turn open and > blower at 1/8 to start off. Once under way, and after approx 200', the > engine really takes off as all the cylinders warm up. So requires cutting > the Johnson bar to approx 40% cut-off, closing blower to < 1/32 turn and < > 1/8 throttle to achieve the same constant speed as above. However running > on alcohol does not give the really noisy blast when pulling out of the > curves. The U1 is a really quiet engine for its size. Engine will "cruise" > at 40-50psi for several laps before pressure drops as the alcohol runs out. > However the R/C Controlled coal burner with Walschearts is a totally > different animal. It has a "hand throttle" which can be pre-set according > to starting and running load, before release. This hand throttle remains > open at all times in pre-set position while running. The R/C control on the > Johnson bar, for forward, nuetral and reverse are infinately notchable on > the left hand control stick. The throttle and blower are controlled on the > right hand control stick, with the initial 1/4 of stick movement > controlling the blower, the next 2-3 notches control the cylinder drain > cocks, and remaining stick movement controls the throttle. Which is also > infinately notchable. At firing up, the hand throttle is closed, R/C > throttle closed, and R/C blower is opened when pressure reaches 45psi. > At 80-90psi at start-off, the Johnson bar is set in fully open > position, the throttle is opened through the blower position and cuts it > off. The drain cocks are opened through 2-3 notches, > to blow down steam and water and then throttle opened more to move off. As > the load is taken up, I reduce the Johnson bar by approx 10%, and back off > on the throttle. As speed is built up, I reduce the Johnson bar setting > again to approx 50%. Typical running with 7 coaches and 50lb load is 1/2 > throttle and 50% on John
Re: Materials compatibility
sues such as leaks around the smoke box door, or a crummy firebox door, not to mention the petti coat and baffles in the smoke box. I would hit the most obvious thing to me first and that is fire thickness. If the fire is too hot, use less of it. In full size practice (well light full size practice of 47 tons or so) we control the fire just as you would control the butane on your live steamer. We need a thicker, hotter fire heading up our grade, but then we want it cooler, thinner, as we come into the station and must sit for 15 minutes without safeties lifting. Timing is everything as fresh coal cools a fire before it catches. So before leaving the station we do some fire work and then as we leave, we pile on a few scoops. The fire is hottest as we get to the worst grade on our track which is also on a curve. There after we will only fix a hole or two in the fire in order to have it cooler before sitting in the station again. So I would look at how you are feeding your fire. Also the type of coal. we never get the same thing twice. Some is hotter than others batches. At a $100 per ton, you'd think you could get consistent coal quality, but you can't. We use about a half ton each weekend. The johnson barin full size practice, you can beat the living crap out of the fire by running in the corner (full forward or reverse). Its fine for first moving, but then the engineer must hook it up in order to cushion the running gear of the engines. At the same time, the draft the fire sees is reduced as less steam is used, thus less up the stack and less draft. Leaving it in the corner can make the fire actually jump on the grates. Much like shifting your car. Response in your car is great doing 60mph in 1st gear but its a bitch on the engine and fuel economy. Even under a heavy load, we hook it up to cushion the engines. I have run our shay hauling two steam locomotives behind me, one with the brakes on (smart ass was trying to stall me), and a full train (coach, open car, caboose), with the Shay hooked almost all the way up to cushion the engines. Opening the fire box door sounded like a 747 taking off, the fireman shoveling a steady stream of the crap we called coal (others would call it dust) at that time. And we made steam all the way up the grade. Awesome actually, the engine even chugged a little. (Shays with diamond stacks don't talk much, just sort of a steady grind) But again, if the safeties keep going off, the fire is just too thick. As you know to drain the water from the cold cylinders you have cylinder drains. It fascinates me to watch gallons and gallons of water pour from the cylinders of our Baldwin when warming them up. At times one drain will stick open and you can see the difference in the fire's performance. But it is not a proper thing to do and again you loose some of the cushion you get when hooking up, thus hurting the engines and running gear. Sitting in the station, trying to keep the safeties from going off, I will crack the fire box door just a bit, maybe a 1 inch opening. This makes a big difference. Again, I'm not too familiar in gauge one coal firing, but from what I have heard, I would look at fire thickness and johnson bar position. Two very simple items to control that in real life, are controlled on a regular basis by the engine crew. As far as hot coals in the ash pan, that is very common. The pan should be made so that air can get in, but ash can not roll out. Been there, done that with several fires. At night, I have seen diesels spu more sparks than a coal fired locomotive. Ah! Another control device.damn I forgot this one. Do you have any kind of damper on your ash pan??? On our shay and Lady Edith, we can control the amount of air coming in under the fire with dampers. I would slightly adjust this (less air) and again it is something easier to mess with than nozzles and such. you can also adjust for load and track conditions, just like the real thing. Hope that helps a little! J.R. www.njmt.org - Original Message - From: Geoff Spenceley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:12 PM Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > > Tony, > > Interesting, JR May had some very good comments, J R?? is that James > Robert, John Richard, Jack Roger or what?? > > Anyway, a friend and I often thought of a control valve to modulate the > amount of steam that is admitted to the exhaust nozzle from the cyls, just > as the blower can be controlled, this would really give one control and > economy. If one wasn't too fussy about the prototype, the control valve > handle or wheel could be at the exterior side of the smoke box.In fact, > I believe this has been done on the prototype. Sir Art, Harry, Keith, > JR-(not of Dallas!) and others I forgot to mention--what do you know about > that--t
Re: Materials compatibility
Thanks Keith, With experts like you and J.R wot else can a fellow need. I'll write you off list as you kindly offer. Geoff >Geoff, >While opening the fire door a bit, does have it's uses, it will also >give some extra oxygen to burn up the unburned coal in the smoke, and >give you a bit cleaner stack, at such times, like when you first put on >a big batch of green coal. But, you still need to control the air UNDER >the fire, to get better control of the fire!! The air coming in on TOP >of the fire, will only react with the unburned carbon in the smoke, and >will not greatly affect the fire bed. which gets it's air from beneath. >You also have to worry about a blast of cold air, from an open door, >hitting the tube sheet, as that can cause warping, and will eventually >bring on leaky tubes. On my firedoors, I have a disk of metal that >rotates, and when it's in one position, it allows tiny holes to admit >air, in controlled amounts, to help with burning the hydrocarbons that >have left the fire bed in the smoke, but not allow a huge blast of cold >air to hit the tube sheets. When rotated the other direction, it closes >off the holes entirely, to seal the upper fire bed from external air >after the smoke is burned off. To adjust the firing rate, you are much >better off to have dampers, which are nothing more than a controlable >coor at the front and rear of the ash pan. If you do not want a big slug >of cold air to come up in the front of the fire, and by-pass the bulk of >th4e fire, plus cooling the tube sheet, you only open the front damper a >bit. Then opening the rear damper, allows the bulk of the air being >drawn in to pass through the bulk of the fire bed, supplying air where >you want it, when you want it to do so. You can get away with out >working dampers by just having the air openings in the front of the ash >pan, a bit smaller than the openings in the back. I have 3/4" scale >locos with both graduated openings, and working door type dampers. >Write to me off list if you'd like a sketch or more detailed verbal >picture. >Keith > >
Re: Materials compatibility
If available, diamond lapping does a fantastic job. When I was still active in my shop, I had(still have, but for sale) an Engis/Hyperz lapping system. Initially I bought it to produce mirror finish surfaces on 1/4" thick stainless steel to produce toilet paper holders that acheived a close to perfect reflection - hey, that's what the customers wanted! Later I did a lot of custom lapping for hydraulic pump rebuilders. Getting rid of the residual abrasive was a very real problem until I bought a small ultra sonic bath. It only cost about $200 way back then, so they should be really inexpensive now what with oriental reproductions, etc. Keep your steam up! Walt
Re: Materials compatibility
> >Ah! Another control device.damn I forgot this one. Do you have any > >kind of damper on your ash pan< > > Unfortunately I don't--I rescue my self by opening the fire door--a tad or > a lot!! I suppose I could make one if I get the energy. That Welsh coal I > have is fantastic so I am adjusting to it's performance after using a > "solution" of mostly crap gathered from any source I could find! > Geoff, While opening the fire door a bit, does have it's uses, it will also give some extra oxygen to burn up the unburned coal in the smoke, and give you a bit cleaner stack, at such times, like when you first put on a big batch of green coal. But, you still need to control the air UNDER the fire, to get better control of the fire!! The air coming in on TOP of the fire, will only react with the unburned carbon in the smoke, and will not greatly affect the fire bed. which gets it's air from beneath. You also have to worry about a blast of cold air, from an open door, hitting the tube sheet, as that can cause warping, and will eventually bring on leaky tubes. On my firedoors, I have a disk of metal that rotates, and when it's in one position, it allows tiny holes to admit air, in controlled amounts, to help with burning the hydrocarbons that have left the fire bed in the smoke, but not allow a huge blast of cold air to hit the tube sheets. When rotated the other direction, it closes off the holes entirely, to seal the upper fire bed from external air after the smoke is burned off. To adjust the firing rate, you are much better off to have dampers, which are nothing more than a controlable coor at the front and rear of the ash pan. If you do not want a big slug of cold air to come up in the front of the fire, and by-pass the bulk of th4e fire, plus cooling the tube sheet, you only open the front damper a bit. Then opening the rear damper, allows the bulk of the air being drawn in to pass through the bulk of the fire bed, supplying air where you want it, when you want it to do so. You can get away with out working dampers by just having the air openings in the front of the ash pan, a bit smaller than the openings in the back. I have 3/4" scale locos with both graduated openings, and working door type dampers. Write to me off list if you'd like a sketch or more detailed verbal picture. Keith
Re: Materials compatibility
Thanks J.R, Now that is wonderful info on firing- especially for my 3/4" scale Brit Passenger lokes- I think my fires are too thick at times--like my head!I have also learned a lot from the Brit publication "Steam World" as there are often very interesting articles on the driving experiences of retired drivers and firemen. Of course all your advice also works well with 1/32 to 1/19th scale on 45mm track too. I just don't own coal fired in that scale. I prefer to sit on the riding car and roast marshmellows while a sipping a hot martini! No wonder I don't use the johnson bar as I should! You wrote: >Ah! Another control device.damn I forgot this one. Do you have any >kind of damper on your ash pan< Unfortunately I don't--I rescue my self by opening the fire door--a tad or a lot!! I suppose I could make one if I get the energy. That Welsh coal I have is fantastic so I am adjusting to it's performance after using a "solution" of mostly crap gathered from any source I could find! Thanks again, I'll bear in mind all you wrote when I next steam. I'm slowly learning, (everything I do is slow!) Thanks Again, Geoff. Well, its "J.R." as in junior. BTW, I met my wife during a bar fight I was >in. What started the fight? Someone (a good friend of mine) called me by >my real name. So don't even ask! > >There are three controls that I have seen that might regulate what goes up >the stack. That would be the johnson bar, cylinder drains, and fire >thickness. There are also mechanical issues such as leaks around the smoke >box door, or a crummy firebox door, not to mention the petti coat and >baffles in the smoke box. > >I would hit the most obvious thing to me first and that is fire thickness. >If the fire is too hot, use less of it. In full size practice (well light >full size practice of 47 tons or so) we control the fire just as you would >control the butane on your live steamer. We need a thicker, hotter fire >heading up our grade, but then we want it cooler, thinner, as we come into >the station and must sit for 15 minutes without safeties lifting. Timing is >everything as fresh coal cools a fire before it catches. So before leaving >the station we do some fire work and then as we leave, we pile on a few >scoops. The fire is hottest as we get to the worst grade on our track which >is also on a curve. There after we will only fix a hole or two in the fire >in order to have it cooler before sitting in the station again. So I would >look at how you are feeding your fire. Also the type of coal. we never get >the same thing twice. Some is hotter than others batches. At a $100 per >ton, you'd think you could get consistent coal quality, but you can't. We >use about a half ton each weekend. > >The johnson barin full size practice, you can beat the living crap out >of the fire by running in the corner (full forward or reverse). Its fine >for first moving, but then the engineer must hook it up in order to cushion >the running gear of the engines. At the same time, the draft the fire sees >is reduced as less steam is used, thus less up the stack and less draft. >Leaving it in the corner can make the fire actually jump on the grates. >Much like shifting your car. Response in your car is great doing 60mph in >1st gear but its a bitch on the engine and fuel economy. Even under a heavy >load, we hook it up to cushion the engines. I have run our shay hauling two >steam locomotives behind me, one with the brakes on (smart ass was trying to >stall me), and a full train (coach, open car, caboose), with the Shay >hooked almost all the way up to cushion the engines. Opening the fire box >door sounded like a 747 taking off, the fireman shoveling a steady stream of >the crap we called coal (others would call it dust) at that time. And we >made steam all the way up the grade. Awesome actually, the engine even >chugged a little. (Shays with diamond stacks don't talk much, just sort of >a steady grind) > >But again, if the safeties keep going off, the fire is just too thick. > >As you know to drain the water from the cold cylinders you have cylinder >drains. It fascinates me to watch gallons and gallons of water pour from >the cylinders of our Baldwin when warming them up. At times one drain will >stick open and you can see the difference in the fire's performance. But it >is not a proper thing to do and again you loose some of the cushion you get >when hooking up, thus hurting the engines and running gear. > >Sitting in the station, trying to keep the safeties from going off, I will >crack the fire box door just a bit, maybe a 1 inch opening. This makes a >big difference. > >Again, I'm not too familiar in gauge one coal firing, but from what I have >heard, I would look at fire thickness and johnson bar position. Two very >simple items to control that in real life, are controlled on a regular basis >by the engine crew. > >As far as hot coals in the ash pan, that is very common. The p
Re: Materials compatibility
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, JR May wrote: > Well, its "J.R." as in junior. BTW, I met my wife during a bar fight I was > in. What started the fight? Someone (a good friend of mine) called me by > my real name. So don't even ask! > Yes, but think of the good outcome that had! --- Paul Anderson geeky1!paul "Nature has been kinder to us than we had any right to expect. --- Freeman Dyson
Re: Materials compatibility
As Keith pointed out, the screens and baffles I am referring to are in the smoke box. - Original Message - From: Anthony Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:58 PM Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > Hi JR, > I agree, I did not really want to have to put a screen inside the > petticoat, unless a last resort, and already feared it may affect the path > of the nozzle blast. So I just will have to back off on the blower a > little, and just enjoy the sparks as opposed to the 1/8"+ size cinders. > At 10mm scale, did the 1/1 scale engine really throw out 4" cinders if > firebox screens were not fitted?. I do not recall having to duck from > these, even when climbing Shap Summit and 18 coaches on. I do not recall > seeing "screens" per se', inside the fireboxes either, only the arches or > fireplates. Perhaps these are the "screens" you refer too?. I have thought > of trying a temporary fireplate to my 10mm coal engines though. > Regards, > Tony D. > > At 04:24 PM 3/31/03 -0500, JR May wrote: > >The screening on a full size locomotive was not below the petticoat. That > >is just a bad place for it and would hinder draft way too much. In the > >smoke box there are screens and baffles that catch the cinders which gives > >more surface area for the screening. Check the Locomotive Dictionary for a > >picture or I can scan it for you. > > > >A diamond stack might be another approach which has a funnel like thing in > >the base of the diamond which catches many of the cinders and they fall to a > >collection spot in the stack. > > > >Bottom line? Cinders are a fact of life, even with baffles and screens. > >I'd risk a fire or two myself! It makes it more interesting. > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: Geoff Spenceley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:17 PM > >Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > > > > > > > Tony, > > > > > > Any discussion of coal, blowers and exhaust nozzles is always worth > > > discussion. Firstly, I would hazard a guess that cinders (in pieces of > > > eight?) from the chimney would be more likely be a problem with the > > > smaller scales. You write blower, do you mean the exhaust nozzle too, or > > > just the blower? > > > > > > I have a few problems with cinders on the 3/4" scale but only one > > > occurrence of any significance was a few years ago with an OS Porter, the > > > cinders caught my hair on fire and started a small grass fire--the engine > > > was working hard and the nozzle blast caused the cinders to fly from the > > > stack. It was great! > > > > > > The stainless steel mesh may work might work but I wouldn't bother--even > > > the prototypes ( according to Steam World) would blow out cinders when > > > working hard. It's probably those heavy J&M coaches you haul with the > > > Duchess. On the other hand is the exhaust nozzle the right size--should it > > > be enlarged--or reduced? > > > > > > One suggestion, if you can stand the departure from realism, would be to > > > have a spark arrester you can insert in the chimney after steam is up, > >like > > > a piece of stainless steel tube with a SS screen--the tube could be a > >tight > > > fit--but would that interfere with the draught--( slurp)? Well time to > > > experiment! You can Americanize a small pwrt of the Duchesss! > > > > > > In closing, I say: Let the sparks fly, or, "Let the FIRE Fall" as we > >said > > > in Yosemite yesteryear when the fire was dropped from Glacier Point! > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > Hi Geoff, > > > >Of course, they were "pieces of eight". Just using a little poetic > > > >licence relative to the correct lapping method you described. > > > > > > > >Question:- If I start getting 1/8" size red hot coals being thrown > >out > > > >of the "chimney", of the Duchess, does this mean the blower draught is a > > > >little strong!?. (Joke, but true). > > > >I now think I may need to place a piece of stainless steel mesh > >inside > > > >the bottom of the petticoat, primarily to keep such sparkies inside the > > > >smokebox, but it also needs to sit below the suction fan nozzle at > >fire-up. > > > >However, the mesh may also affect the path of the blower jet and disperse > > > >it before it enters the petticoat, thereby minimising its intended > >affect. > > > >Have you experienced a similar problem from your "large scale", > > > >Britannia?, or are you waiting to set your real estate on fire yet > >first?. > > > >Any thoughts?. > > > >Regards, > > > >Tony D. > > > > > > > >At 03:06 PM 3/28/03 -0800, Geoff Spenceley wrote: > > > >>"Ello Tony, > > > >> > > > >>Trust you to be a "smart alec"--I thought they were pieces of eight!! > >Well, > > > >>you have the Duchess and the Britannia, so you must know! > > > >> > > > >>Cheers, > > > >> > > > >>Geoff. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Materials compatibility
Well, its "J.R." as in junior. BTW, I met my wife during a bar fight I was in. What started the fight? Someone (a good friend of mine) called me by my real name. So don't even ask! There are three controls that I have seen that might regulate what goes up the stack. That would be the johnson bar, cylinder drains, and fire thickness. There are also mechanical issues such as leaks around the smoke box door, or a crummy firebox door, not to mention the petti coat and baffles in the smoke box. I would hit the most obvious thing to me first and that is fire thickness. If the fire is too hot, use less of it. In full size practice (well light full size practice of 47 tons or so) we control the fire just as you would control the butane on your live steamer. We need a thicker, hotter fire heading up our grade, but then we want it cooler, thinner, as we come into the station and must sit for 15 minutes without safeties lifting. Timing is everything as fresh coal cools a fire before it catches. So before leaving the station we do some fire work and then as we leave, we pile on a few scoops. The fire is hottest as we get to the worst grade on our track which is also on a curve. There after we will only fix a hole or two in the fire in order to have it cooler before sitting in the station again. So I would look at how you are feeding your fire. Also the type of coal. we never get the same thing twice. Some is hotter than others batches. At a $100 per ton, you'd think you could get consistent coal quality, but you can't. We use about a half ton each weekend. The johnson barin full size practice, you can beat the living crap out of the fire by running in the corner (full forward or reverse). Its fine for first moving, but then the engineer must hook it up in order to cushion the running gear of the engines. At the same time, the draft the fire sees is reduced as less steam is used, thus less up the stack and less draft. Leaving it in the corner can make the fire actually jump on the grates. Much like shifting your car. Response in your car is great doing 60mph in 1st gear but its a bitch on the engine and fuel economy. Even under a heavy load, we hook it up to cushion the engines. I have run our shay hauling two steam locomotives behind me, one with the brakes on (smart ass was trying to stall me), and a full train (coach, open car, caboose), with the Shay hooked almost all the way up to cushion the engines. Opening the fire box door sounded like a 747 taking off, the fireman shoveling a steady stream of the crap we called coal (others would call it dust) at that time. And we made steam all the way up the grade. Awesome actually, the engine even chugged a little. (Shays with diamond stacks don't talk much, just sort of a steady grind) But again, if the safeties keep going off, the fire is just too thick. As you know to drain the water from the cold cylinders you have cylinder drains. It fascinates me to watch gallons and gallons of water pour from the cylinders of our Baldwin when warming them up. At times one drain will stick open and you can see the difference in the fire's performance. But it is not a proper thing to do and again you loose some of the cushion you get when hooking up, thus hurting the engines and running gear. Sitting in the station, trying to keep the safeties from going off, I will crack the fire box door just a bit, maybe a 1 inch opening. This makes a big difference. Again, I'm not too familiar in gauge one coal firing, but from what I have heard, I would look at fire thickness and johnson bar position. Two very simple items to control that in real life, are controlled on a regular basis by the engine crew. As far as hot coals in the ash pan, that is very common. The pan should be made so that air can get in, but ash can not roll out. Been there, done that with several fires. At night, I have seen diesels spu more sparks than a coal fired locomotive. Ah! Another control device.damn I forgot this one. Do you have any kind of damper on your ash pan??? On our shay and Lady Edith, we can control the amount of air coming in under the fire with dampers. I would slightly adjust this (less air) and again it is something easier to mess with than nozzles and such. you can also adjust for load and track conditions, just like the real thing. Hope that helps a little! J.R. www.njmt.org - Original Message - From: Geoff Spenceley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:12 PM Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > > Tony, > > Interesting, JR May had some very good comments, J R?? is that James > Robert, John Richard, Jack Roger or what?? > > Anyway, a friend and I often thought of a control valve to modulate the > amount of steam that is admitted to the exhaust nozzle from the cyls, just > as the
Re: Materials compatibility
Gail. Thanks so much for the tips on how to machine port faces out of cast iron. If I have ANY further problems with my brass valve ports, I'm gonna go to cast iron. Now I know how to do it. Thanks. royce in SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Royce I used continuous cast bar stock. To cut a false port face, I milled the port facing complete with ports, mounting holes and to outside dimensions with all features about 1/16 inch deep on the end of a short section of the bar stock. Then I parted it off in the lathe to 50 or 60 thousands thick. Face off a stub of scrap and mount the machined port face to it. In more modern times others have used Cyanoacylate glue (crazy glue) to mount the parts. It breaks down at about 350 Degree F to remove the part or there are solvents for it. Gail
Re: Materials compatibility
Uncle Geoff. Your suggestion of using 1000 grit and bon ami is a good one, but the admonition to "wash intensively" is the key, it would seem. I've heard of vehicle engines going bad after having parts bead blasted to clean as a result of embedded abrasives that weren't easily washed out. The paper trick Mike Chaney suggested may help in this regard where "fluid" cleaning can't grab the particles of abrasive. Thanks for your help. royce in SB Geoff Spenceley wrote: Royce, The valve block surface and the valves should be finally finished with 1000 grit on a properly precision machined steel plate , then on a piece of "real" plate glass using a very light lapping compound such as bon-ami, to the extent where a high polish Intensive washing of the parts to remove all the abrasive materials and metal is essential when all is done. Before all this make sure the ports are clear of burrs and wash thoroughly--you don't want chips of metal to be around as you start the lapping procedure. Geoff. Hi Phil. Thanks for responding to my dilemma. On initial installation, I think I hit the valve face and port face with 600 grit wet or dry & oil before the first run. But I didn't break the sharp edge on the bottom of the valve. On the first run, it may be that the assembly oil ( read that turbine oil) may have run "dry" (although I would be surprised if that happened within 5 minutes of running). However,the scratches (which I am assuming are the result of galling) reappeared after removal of the inital scratches by re- honing. The plans call for both parts to me made of brass, so I am beginning to think that there is a problem with the "bronze" that I used to make the valves. Some impurities may be causing the problem. royce in SB Phil Paskos wrote: Hmm. If the materials are finished well, no sharp edges etc and you're using steam oil that is getting to the ports, I'm surprised that is happening. Phil P
Re: Materials compatibility
Well, Mike, it seems that after digesting the great info from all the responders, that your input may have hit the nail on the head. Residual carborundum is the culprit. I've learned my lesson. I'll be alot more careful about abrasives in the future. I also cleaned out the bores on the cylinders (also "honed") by replacing the carborundum on a wooden mandrel with tightly wrapped writing paper. The bores come out highly polished. A great way to refine a surface Thanks for the tip. royce Mike Chaney wrote: After getting the two surfaces flat - separately, not by lapping them together - rub each whilst still wet on a piece of good quality writing paper. The blackness which appears on the paper is the carborundum which was previously imbedded in the brass.
Re: Materials compatibility
Tony, Interesting, JR May had some very good comments, J R?? is that James Robert, John Richard, Jack Roger or what?? Anyway, a friend and I often thought of a control valve to modulate the amount of steam that is admitted to the exhaust nozzle from the cyls, just as the blower can be controlled, this would really give one control and economy. If one wasn't too fussy about the prototype, the control valve handle or wheel could be at the exterior side of the smoke box.In fact, I believe this has been done on the prototype. Sir Art, Harry, Keith, JR-(not of Dallas!) and others I forgot to mention--what do you know about that--tell us. With heavy apologies to Mister Cole, I fired the Maisie GNR 3/4" scale loco today after several months. I wasn't aware of any cinders flying but the coal ashes were burning in the ash pan--another natural occurrence? Right JR? (not of Dallas!) . It does have a hell of a blast--I should steam it at nite for a fireworks display. With Steam, fire and now Brimstone, Geoff Hi Geoff, >Yes, you are correct. I did mean the exhaust nozzles. They both have in >fact already been reduced once by Mike, to reduce the fierceness of the >blast, which had caused the previous high temps, and blistered paint!. This >weekend, with the red coals flying, the casing temperature was reading >286F. So I guess I am getting up there again, and you may be correct about >the load. >My track has some tight radii and "S" bends, plus 7 coaches at 50lbs+, >engine at 28lbs, >and a thick coating of white hot anthracite certainly makes the blast pipes >bark.. Whereas on a large plain oval track, with the same load and constant >momentum, the blast is much quieter. As to be expected. >I have concerns about fitting a mesh screen after firing up, what is >the melting point of facial skin!??. I guess I have to learn when to back >off!. >Have a great day. >Best Regards, >Tony D. > >a At 12:17 PM 3/31/03 -0800, Geoff Spenceley wrote: >>Tony, >> >>Any discussion of coal, blowers and exhaust nozzles is always worth >>discussion. Firstly, I would hazard a guess that cinders (in pieces of >>eight?) from the chimney would be more likely be a problem with the >>smaller scales. You write blower, do you mean the exhaust nozzle too, or >>just the blower? >> >>I have a few problems with cinders on the 3/4" scale but only one >>occurrence of any significance was a few years ago with an OS Porter, the >>cinders caught my hair on fire and started a small grass fire--the engine >>was working hard and the nozzle blast caused the cinders to fly from the >>stack. It was great! >> >>The stainless steel mesh may work might work but I wouldn't bother--even >>the prototypes ( according to Steam World) would blow out cinders when >>working hard. It's probably those heavy J&M coaches you haul with the >>Duchess. On the other hand is the exhaust nozzle the right size--should it >>be enlarged--or reduced? >> >>One suggestion, if you can stand the departure from realism, would be to >>have a spark arrester you can insert in the chimney after steam is up, like >>a piece of stainless steel tube with a SS screen--the tube could be a tight >>fit--but would that interfere with the draught--( slurp)? Well time to >>experiment! You can Americanize a small pwrt of the Duchesss! >> >>In closing, I say: Let the sparks fly, or, "Let the FIRE Fall" as we said >>in Yosemite yesteryear when the fire was dropped from Glacier Point! >> >>Geoff >
Re: Materials compatibility
Perhaps these are the "screens" you refer too?. I have thought > of trying a temporary fireplate to my 10mm coal engines though. > Regards, > Tony D. > Tony, The screens J.R is refering to are located in the smoke box, and right in front of the tube sheet. It is a heavy coarse wire cloth, also refered to as "front end netting" and sometimes has a hole size of about 1/2". I think the whole idea was to not obstruct the flow of gasses, but those particles that hit the netting would loose some of their energy, and loose their incandescence. The netting I have seen usually runs from the top of the smoke box, down to a point about even with the exhaust nozzle, and "stirs up" the mix, without putting too much of a restriction in the flow of gasses. When cinders hit this netting, they usually fall down to the bottom of the smoke box, where they can be removed by opening a cinder clean out, or if they are still airborne, in a front end of the Hall-Slater self cleaning style, will not be glowing anymore, and hopefully less of a fire risk. Remember that J.R. said he was talking about full sized practice. I think this is another area where "you can't scale down mother nature!" In our No. 1 guage locos, the coal we use is smaller than the cinders stopped by the smoke box netting J.R. is refering to! Keith Taylor Keith Taylor
Re: Materials compatibility
Hi JR, I agree, I did not really want to have to put a screen inside the petticoat, unless a last resort, and already feared it may affect the path of the nozzle blast. So I just will have to back off on the blower a little, and just enjoy the sparks as opposed to the 1/8"+ size cinders. At 10mm scale, did the 1/1 scale engine really throw out 4" cinders if firebox screens were not fitted?. I do not recall having to duck from these, even when climbing Shap Summit and 18 coaches on. I do not recall seeing "screens" per se', inside the fireboxes either, only the arches or fireplates. Perhaps these are the "screens" you refer too?. I have thought of trying a temporary fireplate to my 10mm coal engines though. Regards, Tony D. At 04:24 PM 3/31/03 -0500, JR May wrote: The screening on a full size locomotive was not below the petticoat. That is just a bad place for it and would hinder draft way too much. In the smoke box there are screens and baffles that catch the cinders which gives more surface area for the screening. Check the Locomotive Dictionary for a picture or I can scan it for you. A diamond stack might be another approach which has a funnel like thing in the base of the diamond which catches many of the cinders and they fall to a collection spot in the stack. Bottom line? Cinders are a fact of life, even with baffles and screens. I'd risk a fire or two myself! It makes it more interesting. - Original Message - From: Geoff Spenceley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > Tony, > > Any discussion of coal, blowers and exhaust nozzles is always worth > discussion. Firstly, I would hazard a guess that cinders (in pieces of > eight?) from the chimney would be more likely be a problem with the > smaller scales. You write blower, do you mean the exhaust nozzle too, or > just the blower? > > I have a few problems with cinders on the 3/4" scale but only one > occurrence of any significance was a few years ago with an OS Porter, the > cinders caught my hair on fire and started a small grass fire--the engine > was working hard and the nozzle blast caused the cinders to fly from the > stack. It was great! > > The stainless steel mesh may work might work but I wouldn't bother--even > the prototypes ( according to Steam World) would blow out cinders when > working hard. It's probably those heavy J&M coaches you haul with the > Duchess. On the other hand is the exhaust nozzle the right size--should it > be enlarged--or reduced? > > One suggestion, if you can stand the departure from realism, would be to > have a spark arrester you can insert in the chimney after steam is up, like > a piece of stainless steel tube with a SS screen--the tube could be a tight > fit--but would that interfere with the draught--( slurp)? Well time to > experiment! You can Americanize a small pwrt of the Duchesss! > > In closing, I say: Let the sparks fly, or, "Let the FIRE Fall" as we said > in Yosemite yesteryear when the fire was dropped from Glacier Point! > > Geoff > > Hi Geoff, > >Of course, they were "pieces of eight". Just using a little poetic > >licence relative to the correct lapping method you described. > > > >Question:- If I start getting 1/8" size red hot coals being thrown out > >of the "chimney", of the Duchess, does this mean the blower draught is a > >little strong!?. (Joke, but true). > >I now think I may need to place a piece of stainless steel mesh inside > >the bottom of the petticoat, primarily to keep such sparkies inside the > >smokebox, but it also needs to sit below the suction fan nozzle at fire-up. > >However, the mesh may also affect the path of the blower jet and disperse > >it before it enters the petticoat, thereby minimising its intended affect. > >Have you experienced a similar problem from your "large scale", > >Britannia?, or are you waiting to set your real estate on fire yet first?. > >Any thoughts?. > >Regards, > >Tony D. > > > >At 03:06 PM 3/28/03 -0800, Geoff Spenceley wrote: > >>"Ello Tony, > >> > >>Trust you to be a "smart alec"--I thought they were pieces of eight!! Well, > >>you have the Duchess and the Britannia, so you must know! > >> > >>Cheers, > >> > >>Geoff. > >> > >> > > > > > >
Re: Materials compatibility
Hi Geoff, Yes, you are correct. I did mean the exhaust nozzles. They both have in fact already been reduced once by Mike, to reduce the fierceness of the blast, which had caused the previous high temps, and blistered paint!. This weekend, with the red coals flying, the casing temperature was reading 286F. So I guess I am getting up there again, and you may be correct about the load. My track has some tight radii and "S" bends, plus 7 coaches at 50lbs+, engine at 28lbs, and a thick coating of white hot anthracite certainly makes the blast pipes bark.. Whereas on a large plain oval track, with the same load and constant momentum, the blast is much quieter. As to be expected. I have concerns about fitting a mesh screen after firing up, what is the melting point of facial skin!??. I guess I have to learn when to back off!. Have a great day. Best Regards, Tony D. a At 12:17 PM 3/31/03 -0800, Geoff Spenceley wrote: Tony, Any discussion of coal, blowers and exhaust nozzles is always worth discussion. Firstly, I would hazard a guess that cinders (in pieces of eight?) from the chimney would be more likely be a problem with the smaller scales. You write blower, do you mean the exhaust nozzle too, or just the blower? I have a few problems with cinders on the 3/4" scale but only one occurrence of any significance was a few years ago with an OS Porter, the cinders caught my hair on fire and started a small grass fire--the engine was working hard and the nozzle blast caused the cinders to fly from the stack. It was great! The stainless steel mesh may work might work but I wouldn't bother--even the prototypes ( according to Steam World) would blow out cinders when working hard. It's probably those heavy J&M coaches you haul with the Duchess. On the other hand is the exhaust nozzle the right size--should it be enlarged--or reduced? One suggestion, if you can stand the departure from realism, would be to have a spark arrester you can insert in the chimney after steam is up, like a piece of stainless steel tube with a SS screen--the tube could be a tight fit--but would that interfere with the draught--( slurp)? Well time to experiment! You can Americanize a small pwrt of the Duchesss! In closing, I say: Let the sparks fly, or, "Let the FIRE Fall" as we said in Yosemite yesteryear when the fire was dropped from Glacier Point! Geoff Hi Geoff, >Of course, they were "pieces of eight". Just using a little poetic >licence relative to the correct lapping method you described. > >Question:- If I start getting 1/8" size red hot coals being thrown out >of the "chimney", of the Duchess, does this mean the blower draught is a >little strong!?. (Joke, but true). >I now think I may need to place a piece of stainless steel mesh inside >the bottom of the petticoat, primarily to keep such sparkies inside the >smokebox, but it also needs to sit below the suction fan nozzle at fire-up. >However, the mesh may also affect the path of the blower jet and disperse >it before it enters the petticoat, thereby minimising its intended affect. >Have you experienced a similar problem from your "large scale", >Britannia?, or are you waiting to set your real estate on fire yet first?. >Any thoughts?. >Regards, >Tony D. > >At 03:06 PM 3/28/03 -0800, Geoff Spenceley wrote: >>"Ello Tony, >> >>Trust you to be a "smart alec"--I thought they were pieces of eight!! Well, >>you have the Duchess and the Britannia, so you must know! >> >>Cheers, >> >>Geoff. >> >>
Re: Materials compatibility
The screening on a full size locomotive was not below the petticoat. That is just a bad place for it and would hinder draft way too much. In the smoke box there are screens and baffles that catch the cinders which gives more surface area for the screening. Check the Locomotive Dictionary for a picture or I can scan it for you. A diamond stack might be another approach which has a funnel like thing in the base of the diamond which catches many of the cinders and they fall to a collection spot in the stack. Bottom line? Cinders are a fact of life, even with baffles and screens. I'd risk a fire or two myself! It makes it more interesting. - Original Message - From: Geoff Spenceley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > Tony, > > Any discussion of coal, blowers and exhaust nozzles is always worth > discussion. Firstly, I would hazard a guess that cinders (in pieces of > eight?) from the chimney would be more likely be a problem with the > smaller scales. You write blower, do you mean the exhaust nozzle too, or > just the blower? > > I have a few problems with cinders on the 3/4" scale but only one > occurrence of any significance was a few years ago with an OS Porter, the > cinders caught my hair on fire and started a small grass fire--the engine > was working hard and the nozzle blast caused the cinders to fly from the > stack. It was great! > > The stainless steel mesh may work might work but I wouldn't bother--even > the prototypes ( according to Steam World) would blow out cinders when > working hard. It's probably those heavy J&M coaches you haul with the > Duchess. On the other hand is the exhaust nozzle the right size--should it > be enlarged--or reduced? > > One suggestion, if you can stand the departure from realism, would be to > have a spark arrester you can insert in the chimney after steam is up, like > a piece of stainless steel tube with a SS screen--the tube could be a tight > fit--but would that interfere with the draught--( slurp)? Well time to > experiment! You can Americanize a small pwrt of the Duchesss! > > In closing, I say: Let the sparks fly, or, "Let the FIRE Fall" as we said > in Yosemite yesteryear when the fire was dropped from Glacier Point! > > Geoff > > Hi Geoff, > >Of course, they were "pieces of eight". Just using a little poetic > >licence relative to the correct lapping method you described. > > > >Question:- If I start getting 1/8" size red hot coals being thrown out > >of the "chimney", of the Duchess, does this mean the blower draught is a > >little strong!?. (Joke, but true). > >I now think I may need to place a piece of stainless steel mesh inside > >the bottom of the petticoat, primarily to keep such sparkies inside the > >smokebox, but it also needs to sit below the suction fan nozzle at fire-up. > >However, the mesh may also affect the path of the blower jet and disperse > >it before it enters the petticoat, thereby minimising its intended affect. > >Have you experienced a similar problem from your "large scale", > >Britannia?, or are you waiting to set your real estate on fire yet first?. > >Any thoughts?. > >Regards, > >Tony D. > > > >At 03:06 PM 3/28/03 -0800, Geoff Spenceley wrote: > >>"Ello Tony, > >> > >>Trust you to be a "smart alec"--I thought they were pieces of eight!! Well, > >>you have the Duchess and the Britannia, so you must know! > >> > >>Cheers, > >> > >>Geoff. > >> > >> > > > > > >
Re: Materials compatibility
Tony, Any discussion of coal, blowers and exhaust nozzles is always worth discussion. Firstly, I would hazard a guess that cinders (in pieces of eight?) from the chimney would be more likely be a problem with the smaller scales. You write blower, do you mean the exhaust nozzle too, or just the blower? I have a few problems with cinders on the 3/4" scale but only one occurrence of any significance was a few years ago with an OS Porter, the cinders caught my hair on fire and started a small grass fire--the engine was working hard and the nozzle blast caused the cinders to fly from the stack. It was great! The stainless steel mesh may work might work but I wouldn't bother--even the prototypes ( according to Steam World) would blow out cinders when working hard. It's probably those heavy J&M coaches you haul with the Duchess. On the other hand is the exhaust nozzle the right size--should it be enlarged--or reduced? One suggestion, if you can stand the departure from realism, would be to have a spark arrester you can insert in the chimney after steam is up, like a piece of stainless steel tube with a SS screen--the tube could be a tight fit--but would that interfere with the draught--( slurp)? Well time to experiment! You can Americanize a small pwrt of the Duchesss! In closing, I say: Let the sparks fly, or, "Let the FIRE Fall" as we said in Yosemite yesteryear when the fire was dropped from Glacier Point! Geoff Hi Geoff, >Of course, they were "pieces of eight". Just using a little poetic >licence relative to the correct lapping method you described. > >Question:- If I start getting 1/8" size red hot coals being thrown out >of the "chimney", of the Duchess, does this mean the blower draught is a >little strong!?. (Joke, but true). >I now think I may need to place a piece of stainless steel mesh inside >the bottom of the petticoat, primarily to keep such sparkies inside the >smokebox, but it also needs to sit below the suction fan nozzle at fire-up. >However, the mesh may also affect the path of the blower jet and disperse >it before it enters the petticoat, thereby minimising its intended affect. >Have you experienced a similar problem from your "large scale", >Britannia?, or are you waiting to set your real estate on fire yet first?. >Any thoughts?. >Regards, >Tony D. > >At 03:06 PM 3/28/03 -0800, Geoff Spenceley wrote: >>"Ello Tony, >> >>Trust you to be a "smart alec"--I thought they were pieces of eight!! Well, >>you have the Duchess and the Britannia, so you must know! >> >>Cheers, >> >>Geoff. >> >>
Re: Materials compatibility
Hi Geoff, Of course, they were "pieces of eight". Just using a little poetic licence relative to the correct lapping method you described. Question:- If I start getting 1/8" size red hot coals being thrown out of the "chimney", of the Duchess, does this mean the blower draught is a little strong!?. (Joke, but true). I now think I may need to place a piece of stainless steel mesh inside the bottom of the petticoat, primarily to keep such sparkies inside the smokebox, but it also needs to sit below the suction fan nozzle at fire-up. However, the mesh may also affect the path of the blower jet and disperse it before it enters the petticoat, thereby minimising its intended affect. Have you experienced a similar problem from your "large scale", Britannia?, or are you waiting to set your real estate on fire yet first?. Any thoughts?. Regards, Tony D. At 03:06 PM 3/28/03 -0800, Geoff Spenceley wrote: "Ello Tony, Trust you to be a "smart alec"--I thought they were pieces of eight!! Well, you have the Duchess and the Britannia, so you must know! Cheers, Geoff. Hi Geoff, >As Punch said to Judy, (or the Duchess to Britannia), and Long John >Silver's parrot. >"That's the way to do it, figures of eight, figures of eight"!. >Regards, >Tony D. > >At 12:24 PM 3/27/03 -0800, you wrote: >>Royce, >> >>Based on my experience in the compressed air industry, I would suggest the >>following: >> >>The valve block surface and the valves should be finally finished with >>1000 grit on a properly precision machined steel plate , then on a piece >>of "real" plate glass using a very light lapping compound such as bon-ami, >>to the extent where a high polish (like a mirror) is obtained indicating >>that there are no scratches or burrs. The parts should be moved on the >>glass in a figure eight movement, preferably to a back and forth or >>circular movement. This will help insure that the surface of the parts are >>polished evenly. Intensive washing of the parts to remove all the abrasive >>materials and metal is essential when all is done. Before all this make >>sure the ports are clear of burrs and wash thoroughly--you don't want chips >>of metal to be around as you start the lapping procedure. >> >>Geoff. >> >>Hi Phil. Thanks for responding to my dilemma. On initial installation, >> >I think I hit the valve face and port face with 600 grit wet or dry & >> >oil before the first run. But I didn't break the sharp edge on the >> >bottom of the valve. On the first run, it may be that the assembly oil >> >( read that turbine oil) may have run "dry" (although I would be >> >surprised if that happened within 5 minutes of running). However,the >> >scratches (which I am assuming are the result of galling) reappeared >> >after removal of the inital scratches by re- honing. The plans call >> >for both parts to me made of brass, so I am beginning to think that >> >there is a problem with the "bronze" that I used to make the valves. >> > Some impurities may be causing the problem. >> > >> >royce in SB >> > >> >Phil Paskos wrote: >> > >> >>Hmm. >> >> If the materials are finished well, no sharp edges etc and you're using >> >>steam oil that is getting to the ports, I'm surprised that is happening. >> >> >> >>Phil P >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >
Re: Materials compatibility
"Ello Tony, Trust you to be a "smart alec"--I thought they were pieces of eight!! Well, you have the Duchess and the Britannia, so you must know! Cheers, Geoff. Hi Geoff, >As Punch said to Judy, (or the Duchess to Britannia), and Long John >Silver's parrot. >"That's the way to do it, figures of eight, figures of eight"!. >Regards, >Tony D. > >At 12:24 PM 3/27/03 -0800, you wrote: >>Royce, >> >>Based on my experience in the compressed air industry, I would suggest the >>following: >> >>The valve block surface and the valves should be finally finished with >>1000 grit on a properly precision machined steel plate , then on a piece >>of "real" plate glass using a very light lapping compound such as bon-ami, >>to the extent where a high polish (like a mirror) is obtained indicating >>that there are no scratches or burrs. The parts should be moved on the >>glass in a figure eight movement, preferably to a back and forth or >>circular movement. This will help insure that the surface of the parts are >>polished evenly. Intensive washing of the parts to remove all the abrasive >>materials and metal is essential when all is done. Before all this make >>sure the ports are clear of burrs and wash thoroughly--you don't want chips >>of metal to be around as you start the lapping procedure. >> >>Geoff. >> >>Hi Phil. Thanks for responding to my dilemma. On initial installation, >> >I think I hit the valve face and port face with 600 grit wet or dry & >> >oil before the first run. But I didn't break the sharp edge on the >> >bottom of the valve. On the first run, it may be that the assembly oil >> >( read that turbine oil) may have run "dry" (although I would be >> >surprised if that happened within 5 minutes of running). However,the >> >scratches (which I am assuming are the result of galling) reappeared >> >after removal of the inital scratches by re- honing. The plans call >> >for both parts to me made of brass, so I am beginning to think that >> >there is a problem with the "bronze" that I used to make the valves. >> > Some impurities may be causing the problem. >> > >> >royce in SB >> > >> >Phil Paskos wrote: >> > >> >>Hmm. >> >> If the materials are finished well, no sharp edges etc and you're using >> >>steam oil that is getting to the ports, I'm surprised that is happening. >> >> >> >>Phil P >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >
Re: Materials compatibility
Hi Geoff, As Punch said to Judy, (or the Duchess to Britannia), and Long John Silver's parrot. "That's the way to do it, figures of eight, figures of eight"!. Regards, Tony D. At 12:24 PM 3/27/03 -0800, you wrote: Royce, Based on my experience in the compressed air industry, I would suggest the following: The valve block surface and the valves should be finally finished with 1000 grit on a properly precision machined steel plate , then on a piece of "real" plate glass using a very light lapping compound such as bon-ami, to the extent where a high polish (like a mirror) is obtained indicating that there are no scratches or burrs. The parts should be moved on the glass in a figure eight movement, preferably to a back and forth or circular movement. This will help insure that the surface of the parts are polished evenly. Intensive washing of the parts to remove all the abrasive materials and metal is essential when all is done. Before all this make sure the ports are clear of burrs and wash thoroughly--you don't want chips of metal to be around as you start the lapping procedure. Geoff. Hi Phil. Thanks for responding to my dilemma. On initial installation, >I think I hit the valve face and port face with 600 grit wet or dry & >oil before the first run. But I didn't break the sharp edge on the >bottom of the valve. On the first run, it may be that the assembly oil >( read that turbine oil) may have run "dry" (although I would be >surprised if that happened within 5 minutes of running). However,the >scratches (which I am assuming are the result of galling) reappeared >after removal of the inital scratches by re- honing. The plans call >for both parts to me made of brass, so I am beginning to think that >there is a problem with the "bronze" that I used to make the valves. > Some impurities may be causing the problem. > >royce in SB > >Phil Paskos wrote: > >>Hmm. >> If the materials are finished well, no sharp edges etc and you're using >>steam oil that is getting to the ports, I'm surprised that is happening. >> >>Phil P >> >> >> > >
Re: Materials compatibility
At 08:37 AM 3/28/03 -0500, you wrote: >All the large scale guys at PLS that have cast irons valves and/or >cylinders use engine oil to lubricate the cylinders after they are done >running. "Engine oil" could be a lot of things, do they not use steam oil? >Condensation and the inability to get every last bit of water out >of them after a run assures no rust the next time. I'm confused (not an unusual state) by this statement. It seems to be contradictory. The thing about cast iron (in addition to all that has been mentioned so far) is that after a period of running with lubrication with a good steam oil the surfaces exposed to steam (ie the clyinder walls, faces, valves, passages, etc) acquire a permanent dark or black patina which is a combination of heated oil, graphite, and oxide. This occurs and will exist even with the abrasive action of the rings, for instance, and is a primary rust inhibitor. But this also is typical of full size and large scale steam cylinders, I can't say the same about small scale (specifically Ga1) cylinders as so few are are in iron and those that are don't get opened up for inspection nearly as much as larger scales might. The nearest thing we might have to confirm that this happens in small scale would be to look at the cylinder of an older well run Stuart #10 for instance. Cast iron is also far and away my favorite metal to machine. It produces iron dust (which isn't bad for you), but a good iron just machines so well. Regards, Harry
Re: Materials compatibility
All the large scale guys at PLS that have cast irons valves and/or cylinders use engine oil to lubricate the cylinders after they are done running. Condensation and the inability to get every last bit of water out of them after a run assures no rust the next time. One person forgot this last year and paid the price of having to tear down the cylinders and valves to clean them up. I'll bet he doesn't forget this year. Phil P > Hi Royce. > I use cast iron valves all the time ( except the times I dont ) no > joking apart the valves do not rust if you use steam oil that stuff gets > everywhere so there is no need to worry ;; you wont be disapointed . > I wonder if the gauling is not caused by something totally different > ( ie ) dirt from your boiler ( is ) silver solder flux ;; had that happen to > me once . > > Graham .S( " NO ECHO ". > > > Hi Graham. Thanks for responding. It is my impression that cast iron > > is not used much in gauge one locos due to rust problems or other > > considerations. Not sure what they are. Maybe someone can comment on > > the use of cast iron in gauge one - or rather why we don't see it used > much. > > > > royce in SB > > > > graham sprague wrote: > >
Re: Materials compatibility
Graham- I know the iron-iron is great. I only meant that I was not pushing is as other solutions will work also and Royce might not want to do the extra work of making both false faces and valves. No sense in working too hard at building toys if you don't have to. Gail
Re: Materials compatibility
Graham is correct about cast iron, it bears very well with itself and to every other metal, including aluminum. Also in this category are nichel iron and drill rod (tool steel). In a steam chest that has lubrication, cast iron should not have any rust problems. Brass on brass and brass on bronze are normally bad wear surfaces, but in the enclosed area of the steam chest with lubrication, they will perform well, as confirmed by those with experience in these emails. These combinations however should not be used in areas exposed to dust and grit. For a complete list of combinations, consult Machinery's Handbook, Industrial Press. I went to my copy of Joseph F. Nelson's "So You Want to Build A Live Steam Locomotive" for a condensed list, for which he consulted Machinery's Handbook, Marine Engineer's Handbook, Tool Engineer's Handbook and Ducommun Metals & Hardware. Hope this helps. If anyone doesn't have access to Machinery' Handbook or to Mr. Nelson's book, I would be glad to look up information for you. Dick Griffith, New Britain, CT On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:21:04 -0500 "graham sprague" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gail. >It is quite OK to use cast iron with cast iron ;;it is the only > material > to my knowledge that is compatible with itself . >For instance you can have CI cylinders / CI pistons and CI rings > ( try > that with Aluminum ) ? > > " NO ECHO " . > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > > > > Royce > > > > > However, where does one get .03" cast iron? I have seen > suppliers > > > list cast iron available as "continuous cast" bars, but nothing > of that > > > thinness. > > > > I used continuous cast bar stock. To cut a false port face, I > milled > > the port facing complete with ports, mounting holes and to > outside > > dimensions with all features about 1/16 inch deep on the end of a > > short section of the bar stock. Then I parted it off in the lathe > to 50 > > or 60 thousands thick. Face off a stub of scrap and mount the > > machined port face to it. I use sealing wax. It is still > available at > > many stationary shops and on the internet. Don't use the glue > stick > > types of wax as they are too soft. This is a hard brittle wax if > you > > have never seen it. Heat the stub arbor so the wax will melt on > it > > then press the port face to it and let it cool. Then face it off > to the > > desired thickness on the lathe. Heat the stub to remove the > part. > > Use light cuts. > > > > The old timers used to solder the part to the stub arbor and then > > use the tinned face on the part to solder it to the original port > side > > of the cylinder. I never did that. In more modern times others > > have used Cyanoacylate glue (crazy glue) to mount the parts. It > > breaks down at about 350 Degree F to remove the part or there are > > solvents for it. > > > > I am not pushing the iron to iron as other suggestions have been > > good, but I thought you ( and others) might want to know how it > is > > done if you should want to try it. > > > > Gail > > > > >
RE: Materials compatibility
I will have to try that trick next time. Steve > -Original Message- > From: Keith Taylor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 4:12 PM > To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam > Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > > > > > > I If the surface > > area is too large or the part too fragile for the wack method, then > soaking > > it overnight will break it free also. > > Hi Steve, > I find in some applications, a little heat from an alcohol lamp like the > ones jewelers use, will also break the bond quickly. I use that method > when I have C.A.'ed a thin washer to a mandrel to take down to a thinner > thickness. I glue the washer to a piece of brass that I vae turned in a > collet, then when I have skimmed off the proper amount, a quick hit with > the alcohol lamp, and the now super thin washer falls right off into a > waiting saucer. This works great, if you have a bunch to do, and don't > want to remove the mandrel each time, to remove the washer. > Keith Taylor > >
Re: Materials compatibility
> I If the surface > area is too large or the part too fragile for the wack method, then soaking > it overnight will break it free also. Hi Steve, I find in some applications, a little heat from an alcohol lamp like the ones jewelers use, will also break the bond quickly. I use that method when I have C.A.'ed a thin washer to a mandrel to take down to a thinner thickness. I glue the washer to a piece of brass that I vae turned in a collet, then when I have skimmed off the proper amount, a quick hit with the alcohol lamp, and the now super thin washer falls right off into a waiting saucer. This works great, if you have a bunch to do, and don't want to remove the mandrel each time, to remove the washer. Keith Taylor
Re: Materials compatibility
Gail. It is quite OK to use cast iron with cast iron ;;it is the only material to my knowledge that is compatible with itself . For instance you can have CI cylinders / CI pistons and CI rings ( try that with Aluminum ) ? " NO ECHO " . - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:47 PM Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > Royce > > > However, where does one get .03" cast iron? I have seen suppliers > > list cast iron available as "continuous cast" bars, but nothing of that > > thinness. > > I used continuous cast bar stock. To cut a false port face, I milled > the port facing complete with ports, mounting holes and to outside > dimensions with all features about 1/16 inch deep on the end of a > short section of the bar stock. Then I parted it off in the lathe to 50 > or 60 thousands thick. Face off a stub of scrap and mount the > machined port face to it. I use sealing wax. It is still available at > many stationary shops and on the internet. Don't use the glue stick > types of wax as they are too soft. This is a hard brittle wax if you > have never seen it. Heat the stub arbor so the wax will melt on it > then press the port face to it and let it cool. Then face it off to the > desired thickness on the lathe. Heat the stub to remove the part. > Use light cuts. > > The old timers used to solder the part to the stub arbor and then > use the tinned face on the part to solder it to the original port side > of the cylinder. I never did that. In more modern times others > have used Cyanoacylate glue (crazy glue) to mount the parts. It > breaks down at about 350 Degree F to remove the part or there are > solvents for it. > > I am not pushing the iron to iron as other suggestions have been > good, but I thought you ( and others) might want to know how it is > done if you should want to try it. > > Gail >
Re: Materials compatibility
For machining small parts, registering holes between parts, and a multitude of uses, I find Zap a Gap CA to work wonders. Saves a lot of time and grief. Bob
RE: Materials compatibility
I use CA all the time for machining small parts, I use the same stuff as the airplane guys. Works better than the drugstore Crazy Glue. CA has very little sheer strength so a light wack with a hammer will break it loose and soaking it overnight in acetone will remove all the glue. If the surface area is too large or the part too fragile for the wack method, then soaking it overnight will break it free also. Great stuff. Steve > The old timers used to solder the part to the stub arbor and then > use the tinned face on the part to solder it to the original port side > of the cylinder. I never did that. In more modern times others > have used Cyanoacylate glue (crazy glue) to mount the parts. It > breaks down at about 350 Degree F to remove the part or there are > solvents for it. > >
Re: Materials compatibility
Royce > However, where does one get .03" cast iron? I have seen suppliers > list cast iron available as "continuous cast" bars, but nothing of that > thinness. I used continuous cast bar stock. To cut a false port face, I milled the port facing complete with ports, mounting holes and to outside dimensions with all features about 1/16 inch deep on the end of a short section of the bar stock. Then I parted it off in the lathe to 50 or 60 thousands thick. Face off a stub of scrap and mount the machined port face to it. I use sealing wax. It is still available at many stationary shops and on the internet. Don't use the glue stick types of wax as they are too soft. This is a hard brittle wax if you have never seen it. Heat the stub arbor so the wax will melt on it then press the port face to it and let it cool. Then face it off to the desired thickness on the lathe. Heat the stub to remove the part. Use light cuts. The old timers used to solder the part to the stub arbor and then use the tinned face on the part to solder it to the original port side of the cylinder. I never did that. In more modern times others have used Cyanoacylate glue (crazy glue) to mount the parts. It breaks down at about 350 Degree F to remove the part or there are solvents for it. I am not pushing the iron to iron as other suggestions have been good, but I thought you ( and others) might want to know how it is done if you should want to try it. Gail
Re: Materials compatibility
Hi Royce. I use cast iron valves all the time ( except the times I dont ) no joking apart the valves do not rust if you use steam oil that stuff gets everywhere so there is no need to worry ;; you wont be disapointed . I wonder if the gauling is not caused by something totally different ( ie ) dirt from your boiler ( is ) silver solder flux ;; had that happen to me once . Graham .S( " NO ECHO ". - Original Message - From: "Royce Woodbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Materials compatibility > Hi Graham. Thanks for responding. It is my impression that cast iron > is not used much in gauge one locos due to rust problems or other > considerations. Not sure what they are. Maybe someone can comment on > the use of cast iron in gauge one - or rather why we don't see it used much. > > royce in SB > > graham sprague wrote: > > >Suggest cast iron (best material in the world ) bar non > > > > > > " NO ECHO " > >- Original Message - > >From: "Royce Woodbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:27 AM > >Subject: Materials compatibility > > > > > > > > > >>Hi Gang. Still struggling with my Philly. But I ran across a problem I > >>thought some input from the experts might be advisable. > >>The slide valve port face is made of common brass. I made the slide > >>valve itself from an ingot of an unknown alloy of bronze, thinking the > >>dissimilarity of materials would make a good combination. The face of > >>the ports is galling . So the material combination is not satisfactory. > >> Since the easier part to make are the valves,does anyone have a > >>suggestion as to material ? I'm considering teflon, stainless steel > >>(416), leadalloy, brass, phosphor bronze (of known composition). > >>Thanks for your input. > >> > >>royce in SB > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Materials compatibility
Royce, Based on my experience in the compressed air industry, I would suggest the following: The valve block surface and the valves should be finally finished with 1000 grit on a properly precision machined steel plate , then on a piece of "real" plate glass using a very light lapping compound such as bon-ami, to the extent where a high polish (like a mirror) is obtained indicating that there are no scratches or burrs. The parts should be moved on the glass in a figure eight movement, preferably to a back and forth or circular movement. This will help insure that the surface of the parts are polished evenly. Intensive washing of the parts to remove all the abrasive materials and metal is essential when all is done. Before all this make sure the ports are clear of burrs and wash thoroughly--you don't want chips of metal to be around as you start the lapping procedure. Geoff. Hi Phil. Thanks for responding to my dilemma. On initial installation, >I think I hit the valve face and port face with 600 grit wet or dry & >oil before the first run. But I didn't break the sharp edge on the >bottom of the valve. On the first run, it may be that the assembly oil >( read that turbine oil) may have run "dry" (although I would be >surprised if that happened within 5 minutes of running). However,the >scratches (which I am assuming are the result of galling) reappeared >after removal of the inital scratches by re- honing. The plans call >for both parts to me made of brass, so I am beginning to think that >there is a problem with the "bronze" that I used to make the valves. > Some impurities may be causing the problem. > >royce in SB > >Phil Paskos wrote: > >>Hmm. >> If the materials are finished well, no sharp edges etc and you're using >>steam oil that is getting to the ports, I'm surprised that is happening. >> >>Phil P >> >> >> > >
Re: Materials compatibility
Royce wrote:- > On initial installation, > I think I hit the valve face and port face with 600 grit wet or dry & > oil before the first run. I've not been following this thread, but I wonder if my own experience (and proven method) might help here? After getting the two surfaces flat - separately, not by lapping them together - rub each whilst still wet on a piece of good quality writing paper. The blackness which appears on the paper is the carborundum which was previously imbedded in the brass. Having done this, you will be able to slide the two surfaces together without causing further scratches. I forget who told me of this simple technique, but I owe to them to pass it on to all who need to know. Finally, why are you using oil with the wet and dry? Use water - it's cheaper and not as messy. Mike p.s. when lapping, make all the strokes firmly in one direction, then one stroke at rightangles. If all you can see are the scratches from the last stroke, it's flat.
Re: Materials compatibility
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Royce, I "lap" both parts on a flat surface with 600 grit sandpaper and oil. Then clean very well and then clean again. Maybe I didn't clean the residual abrasive well enough and it caused the galling. Although the depth of the scratches appears to be deeper than the abrasive (600 grit) by a significant amount. I have made a few engines with a cast iron port face about .03 inch thick . . . Then run a cast iron valve against that. Gail in NM This sounds like a fool-proof solution to the problem, although a bit of work. I'm not going to rule it out until this problem is solved. However, where does one get .03" cast iron? I have seen suppliers list cast iron available as "continuous cast" bars, but nothing of that thinness. Someone on this list suggested that old "irons" (as in clothes irons - heated on a stove, I presume) is a good source of fine grain cast iron. I've got my eye on an iron that my dad used to use as an anvil, but I'm afraid that my mom would consider it an antique (as in, "how dare you cut it up for train parts"). But slicing it into .03" slabs is beyond my ability without a surface grinder. Hmmm, I just saw one of those at my friends machine shop. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion and feedback. royce in SB
Re: Materials compatibility
Harry Wade wrote: they shouldn't be galling. Brass and brass ought to be holding up just fine even with little lubrication. Regards, Harry Based on that thought maybe I should remake the valves in a known brass alloy and see if it still happens. This instead of trying a "dissimilar" material. I'm beginning to think that it's this "bronze" that I used. Thanks, as always, for your input, Harry. royce in SB
Re: Materials compatibility
Hi Graham. Thanks for responding. It is my impression that cast iron is not used much in gauge one locos due to rust problems or other considerations. Not sure what they are. Maybe someone can comment on the use of cast iron in gauge one - or rather why we don't see it used much. royce in SB graham sprague wrote: Suggest cast iron (best material in the world ) bar non " NO ECHO " - Original Message - From: "Royce Woodbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:27 AM Subject: Materials compatibility Hi Gang. Still struggling with my Philly. But I ran across a problem I thought some input from the experts might be advisable. The slide valve port face is made of common brass. I made the slide valve itself from an ingot of an unknown alloy of bronze, thinking the dissimilarity of materials would make a good combination. The face of the ports is galling . So the material combination is not satisfactory. Since the easier part to make are the valves,does anyone have a suggestion as to material ? I'm considering teflon, stainless steel (416), leadalloy, brass, phosphor bronze (of known composition). Thanks for your input. royce in SB
Re: Materials compatibility
Hi Phil. Thanks for responding to my dilemma. On initial installation, I think I hit the valve face and port face with 600 grit wet or dry & oil before the first run. But I didn't break the sharp edge on the bottom of the valve. On the first run, it may be that the assembly oil ( read that turbine oil) may have run "dry" (although I would be surprised if that happened within 5 minutes of running). However,the scratches (which I am assuming are the result of galling) reappeared after removal of the inital scratches by re- honing. The plans call for both parts to me made of brass, so I am beginning to think that there is a problem with the "bronze" that I used to make the valves. Some impurities may be causing the problem. royce in SB Phil Paskos wrote: Hmm. If the materials are finished well, no sharp edges etc and you're using steam oil that is getting to the ports, I'm surprised that is happening. Phil P
Re: Materials compatibility
Royce, Although not on the list of recomemded bearing compatibily, I have been using hard Aluminum slide valves on Brass 360 for many years with out problems. 6061-T6 and 2024-T4 both work well. I "lap" both parts on a flat surface with 600 grit sandpaper and oil. Then clean very well and then clean again. Small scratches do eventually show up, but nothing that affects running. I have done several thousand cylinders that way for 35 psi saturated steam with no problems in that area. Other things wearing out yes, but no valve problems. These are 1/2inch bore cylinders. I have made a few engines with a cast iron port face about .03 inch thick and inserted between the chest and brass cylinder like a gasket with some Loctite gasket eliminator between the new and old port faces . Then run a cast iron valve against that. That almost insures success. If that moves the valve spindle too much you might be able to mill off enough of the existing port face to bring it back to where is was. This false port face used to be used on models quite a bit, but I have not seen it used for some time. Gail in NM
Re: Materials compatibility
Dear Royce in South Brazil, I know a little about metals and the coefficients of friction. I, through extensive tests making worm gearing, found that any steel, the harder the better, suffered relatively little galling when used with SAE 92 bronze. This bronze is common for use as bushings and easily available. It has lead in it. When I used SAE 68 aluminum bronze, a much harder material that contains about 9% aluminum, my gears would wear and the steel worms would develop radial scratches. You would think that the harder bronze would have much better wearing characteristics but that isn't the way it goes. Also, aluminum bronze is difficult to machine. My experience with Teflon and nylon gears, or machined pieces, is that dimensionally the material is not stable after machining. That stuff can move 1% to 2% over night. Mysteries of life. A one inch SAE 92 bronze bar 6" long is very cheap and easy to find. It machines easy. Arthur---Mexico City
Re: Materials compatibility
At 08:27 AM 3/26/03 -0800, you wrote: >Hi Gang. Still struggling with my Philly. But I ran across a problem I >thought some input from the experts might be advisable. Royce, I agree with Phil that this is perplexing (and I agree with Graham that C.I. is the best material in the world), but not necessarily in this case. Short of complete lack of lubrication there aren't enough forces or heat acting on the bits in question to result in galling, so I am preplexed. When thinking of dissimilar metals with respect to machine or steam bearing applications the two metals are ferrous (iron or steel) and non-ferrous (brass, bronze, copper, babbit) so brass and bronze aren't actually "dissimilar" in the sense we have here. Nevertheless they shouldn't be galling. Brass and brass ought to be holding up just fine even with little lubrication. Regards, Harry
Re: Materials compatibility
Suggest cast iron (best material in the world ) bar non " NO ECHO " - Original Message - From: "Royce Woodbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:27 AM Subject: Materials compatibility > > Hi Gang. Still struggling with my Philly. But I ran across a problem I > thought some input from the experts might be advisable. > The slide valve port face is made of common brass. I made the slide > valve itself from an ingot of an unknown alloy of bronze, thinking the > dissimilarity of materials would make a good combination. The face of > the ports is galling . So the material combination is not satisfactory. > Since the easier part to make are the valves,does anyone have a > suggestion as to material ? I'm considering teflon, stainless steel > (416), leadalloy, brass, phosphor bronze (of known composition). > Thanks for your input. > > royce in SB > >
Re: Materials compatibility
Hmm. If the materials are finished well, no sharp edges etc and you're using steam oil that is getting to the ports, I'm surprised that is happening. Phil P > > Hi Gang. Still struggling with my Philly. But I ran across a problem I > thought some input from the experts might be advisable. > The slide valve port face is made of common brass. I made the slide > valve itself from an ingot of an unknown alloy of bronze, thinking the > dissimilarity of materials would make a good combination. The face of > the ports is galling . So the material combination is not satisfactory. > Since the easier part to make are the valves,does anyone have a > suggestion as to material ? I'm considering teflon, stainless steel > (416), leadalloy, brass, phosphor bronze (of known composition). > Thanks for your input. > > royce in SB > > >
Materials compatibility
Hi Gang. Still struggling with my Philly. But I ran across a problem I thought some input from the experts might be advisable. The slide valve port face is made of common brass. I made the slide valve itself from an ingot of an unknown alloy of bronze, thinking the dissimilarity of materials would make a good combination. The face of the ports is galling . So the material combination is not satisfactory. Since the easier part to make are the valves,does anyone have a suggestion as to material ? I'm considering teflon, stainless steel (416), leadalloy, brass, phosphor bronze (of known composition). Thanks for your input. royce in SB
