At 01:38 PM 12/29/01 -0800, you wrote:
>I am compelled to ask: What am I missing here?
Michael,
What you may be missing is what for the sake of brevity I did not
emphasize or even convey in my recounting of the article. First of all it
was clear to me in the original article that while these men were
experienced and responsible model engineers they set out to have some fun
with this and that this particular experiment was approached with many
tongues in cheeks. It wasn't in any way intended to be a grand academic
exercise but simply an indulgence in "I wonder what will happen if we try
to blow one up." Idle curiosity, plain and simple. In order to receive
this in the spirit in which it was written one would need to possess [a] a
sense of curiosity, and [b] a sense of humor.
>However, I am concerned that this sort of discussion ("It exploded with a
loud report and the barrel became a projectile and struck a tree 40 yards
away") may scare potential builders away from the hobby.
If you were to have monitored my posting on various live steam forums
for the past few years you would be able to extract at least one well
defined area which always hits my hot button, and that is those who for
whatever reasons see fit to exaggerate, elaborate, or outright fabricate
ripping yarns about boiler accidents. Why so many people are compelled to
do this I don't know but loose lips sink ships and I feel that groundless
exaggeration is as much a danger to us as anything. Why would I indulge in
the very practice I abhor? What I reported was observed (and
photographed) fact from their published words and I think it did an good
job of bringing into sharper focus how strong and resilient the silver
soldered boiler construction techniques which are currently accepted as
standard practice can be.
It also demonstrated, as it rightly should have, how inherently
dangerous the practice of non-mechanically fastened soft soldering boilers
can be and how anyone who advocates that should seriously reconsider their
position, if not for themselves then for the safety of those around them
and for the continuance of the hobby as we know it.
>It is easy to concoct tests to demonstrate the "dangers" of any product
That's true but as I read the article I didn't get any sense of
concoction at all, rather I saw a very simple and effective demonstration
of the relative safety of what we use. I've long ago lost count of how
many times I've been asked by the curious how much (pressure) do you think
one would take? In an immediate academic sense it dosen't matter, but
we're still curious anyway.
Regards,
Harry
