Dear Arthur and Steve, With your following comments--well, shouldn't we also scale down the molecules and atoms--there's a whole new ball game, and it aint cricket!
I'll just accept that BIG kiss from Luz and return it!! Geoff. er- Let me see; X (m squared) + k/X A3 divided by 7*32 X P&Q= hic! = ???? That formula proves the Flying Scotsman can answer Arthur's following question: "Was there ever a steam locomotive that was supposed to run 7.5 hours without stopping for some reason or another and the engineer did not say "filler up"." The most important factor in the equation being the P and Q!! Fellows, I wasn't going to get involved you your scaling discussions as I don't feel up to your capacities. But why scale water? If the scale is 22.5 to 1 and a little locomotive will run 20 minutes on one watering and fueling, which is 1/3 of and hour, that times 22.5 is 7.5 hours of running without stopping. Was there ever a steam locomotive that was supposed to run 7.5 hours without stopping for some reason or another and the engineer did not say "filler up"? Hi Geoff. Luz sends you a big kiss. Geoff >And I seem to remember from model yacht design that the specific gravity, >density, and surface tension of water don't scale at all, which I am sure >has implications for our steamers, too. > >But I am too muddled after a long day in harness to think about it much. I >guess I'll head for the barn and pretend to tinker with the latest loco >project. > >Take care. > >Steve > >-----Original Message----- >From: Geoff Spenceley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:26 PM >To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam >Subject: RE: Flying Scotsman scale weight > > >Right "Arry and Steve! > >It works both ways! but Steve, we are only scaling down from the >prototype, not scaling up from the model.--Ugh--the prototype would sink >thru the ballast!! However boiler pressure could be a couple of thousand >PSI! > >With the model cab sides 004 matl as Harry rightly writes--I wouldn't need >a wreck--just picking it up would crush the cab! > >How did we get into this????? Was it me--I forget! > >Back to Walt's and Jim's P and Qs, yes and Gs too--in a Brit pub, of >course. > >Gallon Gulping Geoff. > > > > > > >And from the other direction: a simple 1/32 boiler made from copper pipe >>would be 2" thick at full scale. That would be a heavy boiler. >> >>Steve >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Harry Wade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:35 PM >>To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam >>Subject: Re: Flying Scotsman scale weight >> >> >>At 12:22 PM 9/19/02 -0700, you wrote: >>>If our model weights were more to scale and therefore flimsier, my train >>>wrecks would be more prototypical!! >> >>Geoff old bean, >> I would venture to suggest that if our model material THICKNESSES >>were to scale then your wrecks might be more prototypical. 1/8" cab plate >>for instance would become .004" material, much more capable of prototypical >>buckling. >> >>Regards, >>Harry >> > > >
