Harry et al,
I have often wondered why manufacturers dont make the tubing and glass of
larger dia-is it because of possible glass tube breakage due to the
pressure.? Then couldn't thicker walled glass tubing could be used.? Even
the 3/4" scale glasses aren't much larger than our little locos. In the
case of the 1985 Merlin Hunslet, the glass plate on the water level
indicator is thicker and fastened with a number of screws. It reads
accurately yet the tubes leading into it are pretty standard. One of Tom
Cooper's inventions??--He sure had some!--Like a huge butane tank and and
an equally big boiler. All for long running. Not a perfect loco by
today's standards but still very accurate to the prototype.
No I'm not selling it!!
Geoff.
.
>
>Geoff,
> I do too, although since the upper passage passes only pass steam or
>air I doubt if this needs to be messed with. I'd say Steve is hitting on
>the right question which is, does the effect of capillary action occur
>primarily in the feed line, equally along the entire tube path, or mostly
>at or near the surface? My guess is that it occurs equally along entire
>length of the water path and that to get an improvement in reading accuracy
>the entire lower passageway needs to be enlarged, along with the glass, or
>little real improvement will be seen. If on the other hand I'm wrong, and
>we all know what the chances of that are (*), and the majority of the
>effect of capillary action takes place in the visible area of the glass,
>then going to a larger glass will affect the most improvement. Sorry I
>couldn't be more helpful.
>Cheers,
>Harry
>
>(*) 50/50
>
