 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / May 2004Slip Switch Track
What is the difference between "Double Slip" and "Single Slip" tracks? How do they work? How are they used on real railroads and how do people use them on model railroads? Thank you for your help, laser633 Anna Maria Island, a quaint litle drinking village with a fishing problem. > What is the difference between "Double Slip" and "Single Slip" tracks? How do > they work? How are they used on real railroads and how do people use them on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > laser633 Imagine an X-shaped crossing. Label the four branches A to D, clockwise from NW to SW. Through routing is A-C and B-D. A single slip will also accommodate one additional movement, say A-D. A double slip will accommodate both A-D and B-C. So, a single slip is equivalent to a crossing and two turnouts; a double slip is equivalent to a crossing and four turnouts. This is kind of tough to do non-graphically, kind of like describing a spiral staircase without using your hands. :-) -- Bill McC. Slip switches are overlapping combinations of a crossing (a 'diamond') and a set of switches ('turnouts'). They are complicated and troublesome on both real railroads and models. They do save space, however, and are used in confined quarters where absolutely necessary. In prototype railroads, one common application is the lead-in trackage ('throats') to large passenger terminal yards. Being deeply imbeded in large cities almost by definition, space is at a premium in these yards. Vast arrays of slip (and other) switches are combined in VERY complex trackwork. A 'double' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing. Choose any ONE of the four tracks to enter the switch, and you can choose to leave by either of the two OPPOSITE tracks (straight through, or branching). This is true no matter which of the four possible entrance tracks you begin from. Such a switch is very similar to a double crossover in function, with one crossing and four switches, but takes up only about 20% as much space. A 'single' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing with fewer possibilities. On each side, ONLY one of possible 'entrance' tracks allow you to choose an alternate exit track (straight through, or branching). The remaining entrance track allows you only to pass straight through. It is equivalent to one crossing and two switches, but again takes up less space. A similar arrangement is the so called 'three way' switch. It's NOT really one switch that allows you to take any one of three diverging routes as it appears (only a 'stub' switch can do that). Such a switch is really TWO overlapping switches. Together they allow the choice of any one of three routes. "Slip' and 'Three way' switches are both examples of 'lap' switches. These are so arranged that the various components of one switch overlap those of adjoining switches saving space. Model railroaders like these switches because they LOOK 'neat', and because they save space. They do require an unusual amount of maintenance to keep working well, and may cause problems with some equipment. Prototype railroads avoid them like the plague, but still are forced to use them in confined areas. Dan Mitchell ========== > What is the difference between "Double Slip" and "Single Slip" tracks? How do > they work? How are they used on real railroads and how do people use them on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a quaint litle drinking village > with a fishing problem. > Slip switches are overlapping combinations of a crossing (a 'diamond') > and a set of switches ('turnouts'). They are complicated and troublesome [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > crossover in function, with one crossing and four switches, but takes up > only about 20% as much space. "http://www.ida.net/users/tetonsl/railroad/dblslip.htm" He also has some verbage on why most RTR double slips and double crossovers don't work very well. Paul > A 'single' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing with > fewer possibilities. On each side, ONLY one of possible 'entrance' [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> a quaint litle drinking village >> with a fishing problem.  SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX Thanks for your replies. They help me decide about using one on my layout. I had planned to throw one in at a junction on a portion of my layout that looks kind of like the top of the Atlas N-16, "Atlantic Longhaul Lines" trackplan. Thanks also for the link to the Teton Short Line site. It has been a while since I last visited Wayne's website. Ed Upshaw Anna Maria Island, a quaint drinking village with a fishing problem. >Anna Maria Island, >a quaint drinking village >with a fishing problem. I was never much of a fisherman, but I remember the Stumble Inn...vaguely... Jeff Sc. Native, Ga. Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. >A 'double' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing. Choose >any ONE of the four tracks to enter the switch, and you can choose to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >crossover in function, with one crossing and four switches, but takes up >only about 20% as much space. The above is, in my view, misleading. A double slip does not have the functionality of a double crossover at all. The essential feature of a double crossover is that it allows trains to cross from one main track to another, in either direction, and most importantly it allows for two simultaneous parallel moves on those two main tracks. A double slip allows for only one movement at a time and is functionally identical to two turnouts connected toe to toe. So identical that the wiring is the same. The lap analogy is correct just visualise those two turnouts pushed together so that they overlap, A double slip is not equivalent to 4 turnouts and a crossing, its just equivalent to 2 turnouts, and is wired and operated as such. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > The above is, in my view, misleading. A double slip does not have the > functionality of a double crossover at all. <snip> > A double slip is not equivalent to 4 turnouts and a crossing, its just > equivalent to 2 turnouts, and is wired and operated as such. Before this erupts into a blaze, may I suggest that this sounds like a terminology problem, and that y'all may be talking about the same thing differently. For my part, I was taught that a double slip is *four* turnouts and a crossover, integrated, and topologically and functionally the same as what you call a double crossover. SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm According to my best recollection, I don't remember. -Vincent "Jimmy Blue Eyes" Alo >> The above is, in my view, misleading. A double slip does not have the >> functionality of a double crossover at all. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >crossover, integrated, and topologically and functionally the same as what >you call a double crossover. Then you were taught wrong, terminology is not the problem, the functions and topology are very different in the two cases. Particularly that a double crossover allows for two through routes with simultaneous moves, a double slip does not. The double slip is two turnouts squashed together. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > Then you were taught wrong, terminology is not the problem, the > functions and topology are very different in the two cases. > Particularly that a double crossover allows for two through routes > with simultaneous moves, a double slip does not. The double slip is > two turnouts squashed together. Yes, definite terminology brane faht on this end. The thing I was missing in trying to visualize your description of the double slip was "frog to frog." A picture really is worth a thousand words. In trying to find the simplest way to make the verbal distinction, how about, "the double slip necks down to a single track, while the double crossover has continuous parallel tracks." SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm Murphy's Laws: (1) If anything can go wrong, it will. (2) Nothing is as easy as it looks. (3) Everything takes longer than you think it will. At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. Dan Mitchell ========== > > Then you were taught wrong, terminology is not the problem, the > > functions and topology are very different in the two cases. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > (2) Nothing is as easy as it looks. > (3) Everything takes longer than you think it will. >At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single >track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. When you select the through route it is as single track with lapped turnouts. The diverging routes are like gantlet tracks. 'OK', I'll buy THAT description ... but it probably already has some confused. Dan Mitchell ========== Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single > >track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. > > When you select the through route it is as single track with lapped turnouts. The > diverging routes are like gantlet tracks. >At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single >track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. True but a gantlet track is logically a single track, only one train at a time can use it. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. >>At NO location in a double slip switch does it neck down to a single >>track. It's more like a gantlet track, with overlapping but separate tracks. >> >True but a gantlet track is logically a single track, only one train >at a time can use it. Your message implies that a double slip switch is not restricted by the limitation that only one train at a time can use it as is a gantlet track. Is that what you mean to say? I should hope not. Never the less, the wording clearly implies that. A double slip turnout, when set to the diverging route is, in fact, very much the same as a gantlet tack. The difference being that the distance is much shorter and the points must be re-set to use the other diverging route. In a double slip turnout, one -and only one- route may be set at any instant in time. Perhaps this is what you meant? > > Then you were taught wrong, terminology is not the problem, the > > functions and topology are very different in the two cases. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > about, "the double slip necks down to a single track, while the double > crossover has continuous parallel tracks." No - the double slip necks down to two closely spaced parallel tracks plus a crossing - four tracks all impinging on a common loading gauge. The double slip can be sub-divided into two distinct families, those where the two curved tracks interlace, and those where the two curved tracks pass without touching. Regards, Greg.P. Keith, the double slip is indeed 4 turnouts and a crossing all wound up into a small piece of trackage. There are a set of points for each of the incoming tracks which indeed means 4 turnouts. Topologically, the double slip and the X crossing are the same basic thing but they are indeed doing somewhat different chores with the intent of the double slip to provide a crossing as the normal and the X crossing the not crossing as normal. -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! >Keith, the double slip is indeed 4 turnouts and a crossing all wound up into >a small piece of trackage. There are a set of points for each of the >incoming tracks which indeed means 4 turnouts. Topologically, the double >slip and the X crossing are the same basic thing but they are indeed doing >somewhat different chores with the intent of the double slip to provide a >crossing as the normal and the X crossing the not crossing as normal. Bob, I thought I explained the difference fairly clearly, and tried to avoid causing confusion by using english English instead of american English. Topology is probably a bad word to use as maybe none of us looked it up in the dictionary and so maybe are using it differently! (We'd probably have to agree on which dictionary to use anyway). Function is better. The double slip functions as two turnouts toe to toe, (not frog to frog). A train coming from either of two tracks can leave on either of two tracks. It differs from two turnouts in that it uses less space and two achieve this with acceptable radii you have two add two obtuse crossings (elbows?) and an extra four switch blades. Note that there are still two sets of switch blades, just that each set consists of 4 blades working together not the usual two. The double crossover (Scissors crossover in England) has the same function as the double slip and also the fundamental and most important function of allowing two trains to pass simultaneously on the parallel tracks. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. I agree it FUNCTIONS as you state, but that's NOT how it's built! The two parallel 'through' routes use DIFFERENT sets of rails. Except when using it as a pure crossing (one route) the rails used are not the same. That's why it's topologically different. Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup have the SAME shape, but different functions. Dan Mitchell ========== > >Keith, the double slip is indeed 4 turnouts and a crossing all wound up into > >a small piece of trackage. There are a set of points for each of the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> > Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup > have the SAME shape, but different functions. "Pass me that bottle, Klein!" > > Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup > > have the SAME shape, but different functions. > >"Pass me that bottle, Klein!" Q: Why did the chicken cross the moebius strip? A: To get to the other.... er. Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within! Then there's the mobius strip. The funniest story I've heard about those has to do with the big old steam engines that used to power shops of all types, with long ceiling mounted lineshafts running all over the place. Usually the engine was in a separate room, or even a separate building, with a great long FLAT leather belt connecting the engine's flywheel to the main lineshaft. The belt might be from one to two FEET wide. Sometimes these shafts would be 50 feet or more apart, and you could NOT see both ends at once. Sometimes such belts were assembled with a half twist in one side to even out wear and reduce tracking problems. Thus they were effectively a mobius strip. Farm traction engines also often use this method when driving threshing machines and such. A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to make it more visible for safety reasons. The worker was also instructed NOT to get any paint on the INSIDE of the belt, or the paint would make the belt slip on the pulleys. Then the joker's would go away and wait for the fun to begin. IF the story has any truth, I don't suppose management was real thrilled with the gunked-up belt! These could not have been cheap. A more plausible version would have the employee applying belt dressing to the inside of the belt, with instructions not to get it on the OUTSIDE. Either way, it's funny to think about the poor fellow's misfortune. Dan Mitchell ========== > > Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup > > have the SAME shape, but different functions. > > "Pass me that bottle, Klein!" >Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within! Clifford Stoll makes and sells Klein bottles on his web site: http://www.kleinbottle.com/ If you remember some time back, he was the Berkley astronomer who got transferred to the university's computer department and given a project to discover why two computer charging programs gave different results - and found hackers whose time was accounted for on one but not the other. And tracked them electronicly to Berlin where they were working for the Soviets, in one direction and to various military sites in the other via Berkley as a gateway. It was a brilliant piece of work from somebody who wasn't very computer literate at the time. The case was famous at the time. He wrote a very readable book about it - The Cuckoo's Egg. > A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn > employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to > make it more visible for safety reasons. The worker was also instructed > NOT to get any paint on the INSIDE of the belt, or the paint would make > the belt slip on the pulleys. Then the joker's would go away and wait > for the fun to begin. <snip> > Either way, it's funny to think about the poor fellow's misfortune. In the Navy, we used to use three-ply carbon sets which came on long rolls (paper, carbon paper, paper, carbon paper, paper). The "newbie" trick was to unwrap one turn of the top layer of paper, trim it off even with the others, then hand it to the new guy and say, "The factory must have messed up. Get these layers back in the right order." It was a rare rookie who didn't start by unrolling the entire thing down the passageway. SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm Living in New York City gives people real incentives to want things that nobody else wants. -- Andy Warhol >> A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn >> employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >up. Get these layers back in the right order." It was a rare rookie who >didn't start by unrolling the entire thing down the passageway. Anybody who has seen 2-ply bog roll paper would know that one. >>> A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn >>> employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Anybody who has seen 2-ply bog roll paper would know that one. Nope. You'd be astonished and amazed at how well and how often it works. I would guess better than 90% effective. On 5/1/04 12:46 AM, in article 4093396f.61940094@news.west.earthlink.net, >>>> A favorite trick, as the story goes, was to assign some greenhorn >>>> employee the task of painting the OUTSIDE of the belt bright yellow to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > would > guess better than 90% effective. As a 1st LT in an infantry unit, we used to regularly run NUGs (New Useless Guys) around looking for: cans of squelch; left handed monkey wrenches; skyhooks (a classic); left hand vibration dampers (for M113 cupolas), and more. Had my driver going all day between me, the PSG, and the motor pool one day during an exercise in Florida. SignatureBrian Ehni > As a 1st LT in an infantry unit, we used to regularly run NUGs (New Useless > Guys) around looking for: cans of squelch; left handed monkey wrenches; > skyhooks (a classic); left hand vibration dampers (for M113 cupolas), and > more. You didn't have them get an aerosol can of slack? Paul On 5/1/04 8:56 AM, in article W%Nkc.7835$Ik.658346@attbi_s53, "Paul Newhouse" <rockhead.com@pimin.rockhead.com> wrote: >> As a 1st LT in an infantry unit, we used to regularly run NUGs (New Useless >> Guys) around looking for: cans of squelch; left handed monkey wrenches; [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Paul No, just prop wash. SignatureBrian Ehni You'd think so but most people have a real problem associating problems into the groups that they are. Most people automatically assume that the problem that they are faced with is an original problem and try to do a straightforward fix of the problem and that is where you get the rolling of the paper down the hallway instead of looking at the end and seeing that one form has the top part removed. -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! > You'd think so but most people have a real problem associating problems into > the groups that they are. Most people automatically assume that the problem [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. > Works every time it is tried! It is only common sense. Which is extremely rare... Jim Stewart >You'd think so but most people have a real problem associating problems into >the groups that they are. Most people automatically assume that the problem >that they are faced with is an original problem and try to do a >straightforward fix of the problem and that is where you get the rolling of >the paper down the hallway instead of looking at the end and seeing that one >form has the top part removed. Right, same problem they have with seeing what a 'double slip' is the logical equivalent of. Hung up on a 'set of switches' having two blades so unable to see that a 'set of switches' can have 4 blades. <g> Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. > Then there's the mobius strip. > > Sometimes such belts were assembled with a half twist in one side to > even out wear and reduce tracking problems. Thus they were effectively a > mobius strip. Farm traction engines also often use this method when > driving threshing machines and such. Never saw a mobis strip type belt on a farm tractor. Most of the time they did put a twist in a standard belt. Howard (ex-farmer) Garner >I agree it FUNCTIONS as you state, but that's NOT how it's built! The >two parallel 'through' routes use DIFFERENT sets of rails. Except when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Now we're into topology. Whee! That's where a donut and a coffee cup >have the SAME shape, but different functions. Oh, I thought a donut was a torus while a coffee cup was a cylinder. Donuts fit inside coffee cups, right? But you aren't supposed to eat the cup. Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. Dan Mitchell ========== Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >I agree it FUNCTIONS as you state, but that's NOT how it's built! The > >two parallel 'through' routes use DIFFERENT sets of rails. Except when [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Donuts fit inside coffee cups, right? > But you aren't supposed to eat the cup. >Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts >DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. > >Dan Mitchell >========== I'll have to think about that one. At first rush I want to disagree with you and say that a torus does not have a closed end, while a coffee cup most demonstrably does. However, I will look into it and reply definatively later. Just think of the possibilities. A donut that can serve as its own coffee cup. The potential for making a fortune boggles the mind. >>Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts >>DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that a torus does not have a closed end, while a coffee cup most demonstrably does. >However, I will look into it and reply definatively later. Nope, he's right. Actually, a cylinder is a torus is a donut. If you took an infinitely elastic donut and pinched and squeezed it, you could shape it into a coffee cup without adding or subtracting holes. You could also mold that same donut into a cylinder... >Just think of the possibilities. A donut that can serve as its own coffee cup. >The potential for making a fortune boggles the mind. But into what would you dunk the donut? Jeff Sc. Flatland, Ga. Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. >>>Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts >>>DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Jeff Sc. >Flatland, Ga. See my remarks about a sponge/torus for coffee drinking. It would take some thinking and working out of the fine details, but I think you would eat the cup as you drank the coffee out of it. You'd have to work quick, before the donut got saturated and started falling apart. Like I said, there are some details that need to be worked out. I'm just the idea man here. OK, this would be a distinct disadvantage at the Waffle House because you could not refill what you had eaten, but if you were the vendor, it would be great. You would sell the cups and give the coffee away. Really you wouldn't, you'd roll the coffee cost into the cup, but most customers would never catch on. Look at how many people are fooled into thinking that $69.99 is a whole lot less expensive than $70.00 Maybe the donut/cup could have an edible glaze on the outside that would hold it together when it was filled with coffee. A food specialist would know about that, not an idea man. > >>>Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. Coffee cups and donuts > >>>DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > before the donut got saturated and started falling apart. Like I said, there are > some details that need to be worked out. I'm just the idea man here. I don't know why you think it would get saturated. It sat under the heat lamp for 3 weeks or so already.... Designed correctly, It can sop up one cupful of coffee while you convert the cup into a second donut... Jim Stewart > Cylinders don't have single HOLES through them. That would be a tube, so long as the hole is of smaller diameter than the cylinder. > Coffee cups and donuts > DO. Both are in the shape of a torus, but the coffee cup is greatly deformed. Any shape could be described as a greatly deformed torus. (?) > Dan Mitchell > ========== [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Donuts fit inside coffee cups, right? > > But you aren't supposed to eat the cup. >>I agree it FUNCTIONS as you state, but that's NOT how it's built! The >>two parallel 'through' routes use DIFFERENT sets of rails. Except when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh, I thought a donut was a torus while a coffee cup was a cylinder. Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > Donuts fit inside coffee cups, right? Sometimes, a small coffee cup might fit inside a large donut. (If you can figure out whic ise is in :). > But you aren't supposed to eat the cup. Normally not recomended. The donut doesn't have a floor ... or a ceiling depending on how you are holding the coffee cup. Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? Hunh. Here I thought it was an exceptionally uuuuuugleeee 1996 station wagon. SignatureSteve Caple > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > > Hunh. Here I thought it was an exceptionally uuuuuugleeee > 1996 station wagon. Isn't an English telephone booth? Jim Stewart > > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > > > > Hunh. Here I thought it was an exceptionally uuuuuugleeee > > 1996 station wagon. > > Isn't an English telephone booth? Hunh? Who? SignatureSteve Caple >> > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Hunh? Who? That would be a Tardis. > >> Isn't an English telephone booth? > > > >Hunh? Who? > > That would be a Tardis. Hey - I rode a bus in from the country, and I was never late for class. SignatureSteve Caple >> >> Isn't an English telephone booth? >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Hey - I rode a bus in from the country, and I was never late >for class. Hello, I'm the Doctor. Doctor who? Yes, that's right. > >> > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That would be a Tardis. The Tardis was stuck, outwardly, in British Police box mode. >> > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Hunh? Who? Yes, exactly, the Dr., of course. > > > > Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hunh? Who? For several years, I had an Internist names Hu He couldn't figure why I giggled when I asked for him... Jim Stewart >>>>>Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jim Stewart Where did he stand when he was playing baseball? > >>>>>Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > Where did he stand when he was playing baseball? He kind of crunched over behind me....He was an INTERNIST..... Jim Stewart >> For several years, I had an Internist names Hu >> He couldn't figure why I giggled when I asked for him... >> > Where did he stand when he was playing baseball? Had to be on first. SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." -David Guaspari >Isn't a torus sort of a cylinder with fat walls? Not exactly. A true torus has only one surface, there is no side, inside, outside, or any of the traditional three dimendional surfaces there is only "the surface". It's sort of like a Mobius ring on steroids, except that a Mobius ring has a surface AND an edge. The torus lacks the edge. A ring torus cannot be used as a coffee cup because it has a hole with no inside wall or floor. If one were constructed from open-cell foam, it could serve somewhat as a device to contain liquids, but only in the manner of a sponge. Not an effective, or particularly useful, coffee cup. Sucking coffee from a saturated sponge is not my idea of having a large time. Not only that, but people will talk about you if you are observed doing that. Greg Procter said that any shape can be referred to as a grossly deformed torus. I agree. A stricter definition and/or description differentiating torii and cylinders is needed. One interesting thing you can do with a ring torus is turn it inside-out to form an identical torus. Every time you turn it inside-out it will be exactly the same as it was before. Sounds like fun, eh? Dear folks, The doughnut-coffee cup case is a good one. The mistake that is being made is in thinking the doughnut hole becomes the inside of the cup. It doesn't. It becomes the hole in the handle! (The cup has to be the kind with an ear). If you carve a wooden model of a torus, it does indeed have only one surface, because there aren't any edges where you can say one surface ends and another begins. A sphere is the same way, though. Cordially yours, Gerard P. >Dear folks, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Cordially yours, > Gerard P. Yes and in the same way that the above torus becomes a coffee cup, a bowl is merely a deformed sphere. I can't really subscribe to that in either case. I think the whole idea of the torus morphing into a coffee cup exceeds the limit of elasticity of the torus. I could say that Rodan's "Thinker" was a deformed torus with the hole being a passage from the mouth to the ear. Such reasoning would permit virtually anything with a hole through it to be called a deformed torus I don't think that will work. An parabolic or hyperbolic coffee cup with a recurved handle stretches the limits of acceptability even further. How all this relates to model railways is absolutely a mystery to me. > Yes and in the same way that the above torus becomes a coffee cup, a bowl is merely a > deformed sphere. That would be the half imploded sphere style coffee cup! > I can't really subscribe to that in either case. I think the whole idea > of the torus morphing into a coffee cup exceeds the limit of elasticity > of the torus. What limits? The donut shape of the torus is just it's energy conservation state. > I could say that Rodan's "Thinker" was a deformed torus with the hole > being a passage from the mouth to the ear. Such reasoning would permit > virtually anything with a hole through it to be called a deformed torus. > I don't think that will work. Worked for Rodan *8-} > An parabolic or hyperbolic coffee cup with a recurved handle stretches > the limits of acceptability even further. > > How all this relates to model railways is absolutely a mystery to me. Remember that simple oval track years and years ago? That was a slightly deformed 2-D torus!! *<8^> Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX >> Yes and in the same way that the above torus becomes a coffee cup, a bowl is merely a >> deformed sphere. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Paul OK, well here's another question. It occurred to me while I was thinking about torii and spheres. In deep space where, for all intents and purposes, there is zero gravity-- ( there is actually no such place, but this is a hypothetical problem anyway so we can pretend)-- and zero atmosphere, will a volume of water left unrestrained or contained form a perfect sphere? Will it form into its shape of greatest density per unit volume, or will it simply blob, amoeba-like and drift through the void? For ease of thought and uniformity of replies let's use a volume of 100 liters of pure water. Think about it. While you are doing that, I'm going to go out into the workshop and mess around with my trains for a little while. > Will it form into its shape of greatest density per unit volume, > or will it simply blob, amoeba-like and drift through the void? It will probably disperse as a gas ... or freeze. If it freezes then the shape depends on how carefully you released it and what shape it was released in. Paul SignatureWorking the Rockie Road of the G&PX On 5/1/04 6:06 PM, in article E3Wkc.10243$kh4.649306@attbi_s52, "Paul Newhouse" <rockhead.com@pimin.rockhead.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 01 May 2004 18:16:25 GMT, rockhead.com@pimin.rockhead.com (Paul >> Newhouse) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Paul That's what I was going to respond. How about a like volume of mercury instead? Or would that "freeze" too? SignatureBrian Ehni The water will not take the form of a sphere. It will in fact take the shape of an F7. Santa Fe, of course. Mike > >> Yes and in the same way that the above torus becomes a coffee cup, a bowl is merely a > >> deformed sphere. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > While you are doing that, I'm going to go out into the workshop and mess around with > my trains for a little while. >The water will not take the form of a sphere. It will in fact take the >shape of an F7. Santa Fe, of course. > >Mike Mike is the only one who got it (almost) right. Mike, it would only be a Santa-Fe eff unit if that's what you wanted to see. If you wanted to see a Florida East Coast eff unit, it would be that. Read Raychaudhuri's treatise on the subject and you will see. > >The water will not take the form of a sphere. It will in fact take the > >shape of an F7. Santa Fe, of course. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Read Raychaudhuri's treatise on the subject and you will see. Actually, string theory suggests it would take the form of a multitude of engines, depenjding on which universe it was in. No, I am not a theoritical phyisist, I just slept on a motel bed last night... James R Stewart, PhD.... >will a volume of water left unrestrained or contained form a perfect sphere?< I read somewhere once that they were experimenting making perfect ball bearings using space. I'm going to guess you would get a perfect ball of ice. Froggy@The wrote:> > OK, well here's another question. It occurred to me while I was thinking about torii > and spheres. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > While you are doing that, I'm going to go out into the workshop and mess around with > my trains for a little while. It will freeze instantly into whatever shape it was in when released. Oh, and a torus is a particular shape: "A solid in the shape of a donut, formed by rotating a circle about a line in its plane without intersecting it." Sure, it could "morph" into many other shapes, but it is then no longer a torus. Just as a sphere could morph into a cube, but it would then be a cube, not a sphere. MacIndoe >Froggy@The wrote:> >> OK, well here's another question. It occurred to me while I was thinking about torii [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >MacIndoe Someone said that a coffee cup is a slightly deformed torus. Greg Procter said words to the effect "nonsense" with which I agreed. I use US Navy coffee cups which have no ear, or handle, nor any bottom or top and are therefore invlouted oblate spheres. I ~DO~ however have a ewer which ~IS~ a torus if such a shape can legally be defined as such. It has an ear, but then so do I, however I am a Taurus, not a torus. This is distinctly different from a talus or a talon. Froggy@The wrote: ....> Someone said that a coffee cup is a slightly deformed torus. Greg Procter said words > to the effect "nonsense" with which I agreed. > I use US Navy coffee cups which have no ear, or handle, nor any bottom or top and are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as such. It has an ear, but then so do I, however I am a Taurus, not a torus. > This is distinctly different from a talus or a talon. Well, it is often said that humans are topologically equivalent to a torus :-) David >Froggy@The wrote: >....> Someone said that a coffee cup is a slightly deformed torus. Greg [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >David Perhaps, but that is stretching it a bit<G> Incorrect. Humans have SEVERAL interconnected holes and internal passages. More like a swiss cheese. Dan Mitchell ========== > Froggy@The wrote: > ....> Someone said that a coffee cup is a slightly deformed torus. Greg [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David >Incorrect. Humans have SEVERAL interconnected holes and internal >passages. More like a swiss cheese. > >Dan Mitchell >========== What kind of Swiss Cheese? They make many kinds of cheeses in Switzerland. I like them all. ................F> Smartaz, GA. >In deep space where, for all intents and purposes, there is zero gravity-- ( there is >actually no such place, but this is a hypothetical problem anyway so we can >pretend)-- and zero atmosphere, will a volume of water left unrestrained or contained >form a perfect sphere? >Will it form into its shape of greatest density per unit volume, or will it simply >blob, amoeba-like and drift through the void? There's still molecular forces, and 100 litres of water has it's own gravitational force... Jeff Sc Physics R Us, Ga. Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. >>In deep space where, for all intents and purposes, there is zero gravity-- ( there is >>actually no such place, but this is a hypothetical problem anyway so we can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. And thus, the answer is...................................????? > >Dear folks, > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > How all this relates to model railways is absolutely a mystery to me. Once read a story where one last bypass was added to the Boston Subway System, making it into a mobius strip...Does traction count? Jim Stewart >Once read a story where one last bypass was added to the Boston Subway >System, making it >into a mobius strip...Does traction count? > >Jim Stewart Armin Deutsch wrote the story, the Kingston Trio made it into a song. Both are true according to some sources. ...................F> Enquiring Minds Want to Know, GA. Aside from the delightful offtopic that the word topology has created - BTW, a torus is a one hole surface and the coffee cup and the donut are the same topologically as the cup part of the coffee cup is just a minor distortion of the surface that is of no concequence for the math type. The double slip switch has a set of points and frogs on each of the tracks coming into the thing thus it is 4 turnouts, not two. A single slip switch has two turnouts as only two of the legs of the trackage have points and frogs on them. -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! > >> The above is, in my view, misleading. A double slip does not have the > >> functionality of a double crossover at all. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > with simultaneous moves, a double slip does not. The double slip is > two turnouts squashed together. A double slip has four sets of points in addition to a centre crossing, even though it has the same routing functions as two turnouts toe to toe. Regards, Greg.P. I agree with what you say, but find from experience that many modelers can't understand the notion of a 'lap' switch. A double slip IS the equivalent of a double crossover, so long as only ONE train at a time uses it. You are, of course. correct that a double crossover allows two trains to pass each other IN the switchwork, that cannot be done in a double slip (at least not without some excitement). :-( The confusion over 'lap' switches is why most consider the common double lap switch to be a 'three way' switch. It's NOT. Dan Mitchell ========== > >A 'double' slip switch can be though of as a 'routing' crossing. Choose > >any ONE of the four tracks to enter the switch, and you can choose to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> > Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. >I agree with what you say, but find from experience that many modelers >can't understand the notion of a 'lap' switch. A double slip IS the >equivalent of a double crossover, so long as only ONE train at a time >uses it. You are, of course. correct that a double crossover allows two >trains to pass each other IN the switchwork, that cannot be done in a >double slip (at least not without some excitement). :-( I don't think it can be done even with the excitement added<G> I think you would have to get Ray Bradbury in on the project before it would work. He did something similar on Mars many years ago. >The confusion over 'lap' switches is why most consider the common double >lap switch to be a 'three way' switch. It's NOT. Congratulations! Now you can try explaining the difference between drills, drill motors and bits, and explain why there is no such thing as a "drill bit". Oh yeah, while you're at it you can also illuminate the masses regarding the incorrect use of the term "lashup" to mean "consist". Good luck! ....................F> Etymology, GA. No thanks, Froggy! :-( I got involved in the 'drill bit' issue both here and in the metalworker's newsgroup <rec.crafts.metalworking >. That went on for weeks, with about twenty vocal supports for each position. There are points to be made on BOTH sides (and perhaps a few MORE sides as well). The real answer is lost in the mists of time somewhere back a few centuries ago. Shall we restart the "Switch" vs. "Turnout" mess while we're at it? Dan Mitchell ========== Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >I agree with what you say, but find from experience that many modelers > >can't understand the notion of a 'lap' switch. A double slip IS the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > ....................F> > Etymology, GA. >No thanks, Froggy! :-( > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Dan Mitchell >========== Yas Suh ! I'm game if you are <VBG> Froggy@The Pond.com wrote to D. Mitchell: > Congratulations! > Now you can try explaining the difference between drills, drill motors and > bits, and explain why there is no such thing as a "drill bit". > Oh yeah, while you're at it you can also illuminate the masses regarding > the incorrect use of the term "lashup" to mean "consist". > Good luck! Oh, and let's not forget about whether a revolver is or is not a pistol. SignatureJohn Miller South Etymology, GA Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm We don't believe in rheumatism and true love until after the first attack. -Marie Ebner von Eschenbach >Froggy@The Pond.com wrote to D. Mitchell: >> Congratulations! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Oh, and let's not forget about whether a revolver is or is not a pistol. Like I told Dan, I'm game if you are. Which side do you want to take? > Like I told Dan, I'm game if you are. > Which side do you want to take? Sorry...I'm not game. (But if I were, I'd take the more permissive of the two positions. :-) SignatureJohn Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm The sight of death frightens them [Earthers]. -Kras the Klingon, "Friday's Child", stardate 3497.2 > Froggy@The Pond.com wrote to D. Mitchell: > > Congratulations! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh, and let's not forget about whether a revolver is or is not a pistol. So we won't go in to how yanks shoot their guns? Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >I agree with what you say, but find from experience that many modelers > >can't understand the notion of a 'lap' switch. A double slip IS the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Oh yeah, while you're at it you can also illuminate the masses regarding the > incorrect use of the term "lashup" to mean "consist". "Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. >"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. Please elaborate. This should be interesting. Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. > > Please elaborate. > This should be interesting. Dictionary definition: Consist (v.i.) to be composed of: be comprised or contained in. (Oxford dictionary) There is no entry "Consist (n)", but if we try, by mental gymnastics to create a noun form of the word we end up regarding the individual physical contents or components of an action. 8^P The first time I read the word "consist" in a RM magazine (after circa 30 years of being a railway and model railway enthusiast) all I could come up with was "Huhh? What the hell are they on about". There's no way to get from the word to the meaning without being "in the know". (I must admit also to having a problem in reading about "gas electrics" - what sort of gas? where are the big bags? etc) Regards, Greg.P. >>>"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What the hell are they on about". > There's no way to get from the word to the meaning without being "in the know". If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, use an American dictionary. Look at the noun definition of "consist" at Merriam-Webster: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=consist "makeup or composition (as of coal sizes or a railroad train) by classes, types, or grades and arrangement" > >>>"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > If you're going to say it's incorrect as used by US railways, use an American > dictionary. Why would anyone want to use a US dictionary? > Look at the noun definition of "consist" at Merriam-Webster: > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=consist > "makeup or composition (as of coal sizes or a railroad train) by classes, > types, or grades and arrangement" OK, so your US dictionary lists current US misuses of words - there's still no way from the word to the meaning in real terms. >> >>>"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Why would anyone want to use a US dictionary? Those of us who reside in North America find them exceedingly useful. It is not necessary for North America and New Zealand to have identical etymological parameters. It doesn't make either group more correct or more wrong. There are always minor differences in such things. Even within the USA there are regional etymologies that differ slightly. It has to do with our enormous size and cultural diversity. New Zealand is about the same size as the states of Georgia and Alabama combined, 268,677 square kilometers for NZ and 281,451 square kilometers for GA and AL. You will find extremely little etymological differences between GA and AL, but you will find a great difference between them and Connecticut/Massachusetts, which are over a thousand miles away, yet still in the same country. Such is the nature of man. We do not speak the same English that our pre-Columbian predecessors did and our descendants will not speak the same English we do. Such is the unavoidable nature of things. English is a living language; a very highly adaptable and fluid living language that grows and changes with need and convenience. I am amused to imagine what a very prim and proper Elizabethan Englishman might have to say about the language that either you or I speak today. No doubt he would be greatly upset with the degree to which we have corrupted the language. So it is with each generation. Froggy@The, Pond.com wrote: > >> >>>"Consist" is in itself an incorrect term as used by US railways. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Those of us who reside in North America find them exceedingly useful. I can imagine - you have all those idiots making up new meanings for existing words when we already have several hundred thousand of them to cover almost every possible situation. > It is not necessary for North America and New Zealand to have identical etymological > parameters. It doesn't make either group more correct or more wrong. There are > always minor differences in such things. Even within the USA there are regional > etymologies that differ slightly. It has to do with our enormous size and cultural > diversity. > New Zealand is about the same size as the states of Georgia and Alabama combined, Hey, don't go getting rude! > 268,677 square kilometers for NZ and 281,451 square kilometers for GA and AL. You > will find extremely little etymological differences between GA and AL, but you will > find a great difference between them and Connecticut/Massachusetts, which are over a > thousand miles away, yet still in the same country. New Zealand spreads over 2000miles from end to end. > Such is the nature of man. We do > not speak the same English that our pre-Columbian predecessors did and our [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > language that either you or I speak today. No doubt he would be greatly upset with > the degree to which we have corrupted the language. US english has many components that are much closer to 1776 English than the British use today. I'm not really rubbishing US english other than the very recent collection of non-logical misadditions such as "consist". oh, and "gas" for "gasoline". > So it is with each generation. There has been a massive increase in the last 20 odd years of such idiotic and non-sensical terms. Everytime that this discussion of English vs.US usage of words happens, I get reminded of a joke about the difference. An elderly English dowager is on vacation in America and in registering at a nice posh hotel and going to the room, as she is tipping the bellboy, she says "Come knock me up about 7 in the morning." Now, to an Englishman, this may be "normal' speech, but to an American, knocking somebody up is having sex with the woman and getting her pregnant! OOPTH! -- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works every time it is tried! > Everytime that this discussion of English vs.US usage of words happens, I > get reminded of a joke about the difference. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > knocking somebody up is having sex with the woman and getting her pregnant! > OOPTH! I was at one of those corporate improvement courses where the US guest speaker commented on "fanny patting" as being barely pc. He was puzzled by the audience's response which of course related to the English language "fanny" being a slightly different part of a womans anatomy. > I can imagine - you have all those idiots making up new meanings for existing words when > we already have several hundred thousand of them to cover almost every possible > situation. Hey - it's the Oxford English Dictionary which added bling-bling to the dictionary. > > I can imagine - you have all those idiots making up new meanings for > existing words when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hey - it's the Oxford English Dictionary which added bling-bling to the > dictionary. Ouch!! Hey, I'm not particularly attacking the USa as such, it's this carry on of making up senseless terms. For example, there's a NZ company presently advertising it's "Table spread" on TV. Why the hell would anyone want to spread a table, or spread something edible on a table? I know that it is a substitute for butter, magarine etc for spreading on bread, crackers or whatever, but their term doesn't tell me that. In the same way "consist" doesn't tell me that you're talking about turning multiple locos in to a singly controllable loco unit, any more than calling them an "Albert" would. Regards, Greg.P. >For example, there's a NZ company presently advertising it's "Table spread" >on TV. Why the hell would anyone want to spread a table, or spread something [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >turning multiple locos in to a singly controllable loco unit, any more than >calling them an "Albert" would. Sounds like you should be speaking German, where words mean what they mean, and hte language is basically static. Up here, we've learned to adapt and change. Besides, jargon is an accepted form of communication, and railway workers in the US know what a consist is, just as they have no need to know what the function of a plate-layer is. After all, why would we need to lay a plate? Sounds like something that would require a table spread... I know what is meant by "consist", and so do you. If you don't, all you have to do is ask - that's why we're here...welll, most of us, anyway. Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. > >For example, there's a NZ company presently advertising it's "Table spread" > >on TV. Why the hell would anyone want to spread a table, or spread something [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sounds like you should be speaking German, where words mean what they > mean, and hte language is basically static. Err well, I read it. > Up here, we've learned to adapt and change. That's nice, but we don't all live in the one country but some things are becoming "international". > Besides, jargon is an > accepted form of communication, It's basically rubbish. Fine perhaps if you have a narrow life and never look outside it's confines. > and railway workers in the US know > what a consist is, just as they have no need to know what the function > of a plate-layer is. After all, why would we need to lay a plate? The "plate" in question is actually a plate - it's a steel plate that sits between the rail and the sleeper (or tie) to extend the life of the sleeper and give the rail a more solid foundation. There's the advantage of giving things names that reflect their function, you can figure out what they are from the name! > Sounds like something that would require a table spread... > > I know what is meant by "consist", and so do you. Yes of course I know the meaning of consist, but the first time I came across it I did not know, the meaning didn't leap out even in context (Model Railroader) and there was no internet. > If you don't, all > you have to do is ask - that's why we're here...welll, most of us, > anyway. I keep a watch on this ng in the hope of learning something. > Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. Who? What? Where? Which? How? >Who? What? Where? Which? How? ...thus demonstrating his wide experience and knowledge of everything contained within the wide world... Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. > >Who? What? Where? Which? How? > > ...thus demonstrating his wide experience and knowledge of everything > contained within the wide world... Thus Jeff SC. demonstrates his complete inability to answer simple and basic questions. >> >Who? What? Where? Which? How? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thus Jeff SC. demonstrates his complete inability to answer simple and >basic questions. Me. This thing. Here. This one. This way. Simple answers for a simple man. Now do you feel enlightened? Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed. > >> >Who? What? Where? Which? How? > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Simple answers for a simple man. Now do you feel enlightened? No, but answers from simple people often leave me feeling that way. Why are we fighting? Regards, Greg.P. >> >> >Who? What? Where? Which? How? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Why are we fighting? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message