Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Railroads / May 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"Cold Steam" Locos

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dale Carlson - 22 May 2008 11:57 GMT
Back in the late 40's or early 50's, The Model Railroader had an
article about essentially live steam locos in O gauge that used dry
ice for power rather than a steam boiler. Does anyone here know of
anybody who has done this? Despite the threat of contributing
to global warming by powering a model loco with a chunk of solid
CO2 in a sealed tender cannister, it's a very interesting idea to me.
Add modern radio control, rather than the crude controls back then,
and you'd have a small scale backyard "steam" RR without blowers,
silver soldering, etc...

Just wondering,

Dale
Wolf Kirchmeir - 22 May 2008 14:41 GMT
> Back in the late 40's or early 50's, The Model Railroader had an
> article about essentially live steam locos in O gauge that used dry
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Dale

a) any live steam engine can be run on dry ice if the rate of
evaporation is high enough.
b) there are risks of personal injury associated with handling dry ice.
c) you won't contribute to global warming by running a locomotive on dry
ice, as the dry ice just uses CO2 that already exists.
d) OTOH, the refrigeration machinery used to produce dry ice will
contribute to CO2 production

HTH

Signature

wolf k.

Steve Caple - 22 May 2008 16:38 GMT
>> Back in the late 40's or early 50's, The Model Railroader had an
>> article about essentially live steam locos in O gauge that used dry
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> d) OTOH, the refrigeration machinery used to produce dry ice will
> contribute to CO2 production

Why not just use CO2 in pressure tanks, and spare the energy used to freeze
it?

Signature

Steve

Dale Carlson - 23 May 2008 07:34 GMT
>Why not just use CO2 in pressure tanks, and spare the energy used to freeze
>it?

In that case, it makes more sense to use compressed air, as with the
pneumatic locos Porter and others made for industrial use. But I'm not
sure that would scale down to O or even G without having very
high pressure tanks. Maybe if you're a good enough machinist to
make something that small that doesn't leak much, but I'm not...

Maybe vinegar and baking soda would work- when I was a kid (long
ago), I had a toy sub that used that to shoot missiles which would
be a product liability lawyer's dream today :)

Sorry about starting a global warming thread- that wasn't my intent,
but I should have known better.

Dale
John Fraser - 23 May 2008 18:15 GMT
Good afternoon Dale;

>>Why not just use CO2 in pressure tanks, and spare the energy used to
>>freeze
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> high pressure tanks. Maybe if you're a good enough machinist to
> make something that small that doesn't leak much, but I'm not...

   Compressed air would be simpler, safer, and cheaper in the long run.
Unfortunately, it's also noisy.  Of course, someone may complain that
generating the electricity would create more CO2.  Well, so would the
computers which the responses to you were typed on.  In fact, nearly
everything associated with electricity is about dissipated heat, including
model railroading.  Bummer.

> Maybe vinegar and baking soda would work- when I was a kid (long
> ago), I had a toy sub that used that to shoot missiles which would
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Dale

   Global warming isn't attributed to any single event.  Yeah, one can
blame fossil fuels.  Take a look at your neighbourhood.  Chances are it is
heated by fossil fuels, built of wood to some extent, and the only green is
grass.  The most efficient filters of CO2 are trees.  How many do you see
standing, and are seasonal?  Wood is also an alternative heating source.
Above that, all plants release some CO2 as well for growth.

   You asked a legitimate question.  It's unfortunate that some got carried
away.  It's a common problem with most threads.

Cheers,
John
mark - 24 May 2008 01:39 GMT
<snip>
> Maybe vinegar and baking soda would work- when I was a kid (long
> ago), I had a toy sub that used that to shoot missiles which would
> be a product liability lawyer's dream today :)

Yeah, well, *I* had a toy PT boat that ran on baking soda and bath water.
Bet my PT boat would have sunk your sub! <g>

       mark
Dale Carlson - 24 May 2008 13:07 GMT
><snip>
>> Maybe vinegar and baking soda would work- when I was a kid (long
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Yeah, well, *I* had a toy PT boat that ran on baking soda and bath water.
>Bet my PT boat would have sunk your sub! <g>

OK, yeah, maybe. But could it have put my eyes out too?  :)

Dale

Amazing how we survived on simple common sense only a few
decades ago.
mark - 25 May 2008 03:43 GMT
>><snip>
>>> Maybe vinegar and baking soda would work- when I was a kid (long
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> OK, yeah, maybe. But could it have put my eyes out too?  :)

Well, no, since it was plastic, and about 2" long, and just putted along in
the tub.

> Amazing how we survived on simple common sense only a few
> decades ago.

Right. We didn't have warning labels like "do not lift lawnmower above head
to trim bushes".

       mark
Greg Procter - 22 May 2008 21:29 GMT
> Back in the late 40's or early 50's, The Model Railroader had an
> article about essentially live steam locos in O gauge that used dry
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Dale

I remember the article. It seemed and seems a quite workable concept.
Potential problems:
- everything that gets hot on a live steam loco will be freezing cold.
- small passages may well ice up.
- you would need to control the volume of atmosphere getting to the
sealed cannister so as to control the volume and pressure of gas given
off.

You'd actually be instantaniously contributing to 'global cooling'
although producing the frozen CO2 would have created more warming.

Greg.P.
Roger T. - 23 May 2008 04:24 GMT
"Greg Procter" <

> You'd actually be instantaniously contributing to 'global cooling'
> although producing the frozen CO2 would have created more warming.

CO2 is what plants absob from the atmosphere.

Regardless of Al (Knows nothing) Gore, CO2 is not bad.  It's what keeps all
green things alive.  There's less CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was
1000 years ago.

--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude:  48° 25' North
Longitude:  123° 21' West
P. Roehling - 23 May 2008 04:45 GMT
> Regardless of Al (Knows nothing) Gore, CO2 is not bad.

Uh, *too much* CO2 *IS* bad. See Venus for an example. And if we don't cut
down the way we're loading the atmosphere with it, it's going to be *very*
bad for our descendants.

And you just heard this from a Republican who's not too crazy about Al Gore.

(Free hint: reality is reality, even when it falls trippingly from the
tongue of someone you cordially dislike.)

-Pete
John Fraser - 23 May 2008 17:57 GMT
>> Regardless of Al (Knows nothing) Gore, CO2 is not bad.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> -Pete

   On the bright side, our fossil fuel sources will eventually be depleted
bringing things back to normal, whatever that is.  Perhaps road apples will
become fashionable again.

Cheers,
John
Paul Newhouse - 23 May 2008 18:47 GMT
>>> Regardless of Al (Knows nothing) Gore, CO2 is not bad.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Cheers,
> John

A more serious green house gas is methane, guess what those road apples
give off?  An animal population sufficient to produce half of what we
depend on fossil fuel for would produce dramatic consequences for the
environment, probably all bad for humans.

If there is a tipping point and we pass it then it doesn't matter that we are
no longer contributing to the imbalance.

The earth is warming, the historical record (recent and past) confirm this.
If you don't want to believe that then no amount of evidence will convince you.
It doesn't matter why the temp is rising, the facts show that it is.

We have no plan to deal with the warming and its consequences.  This stupid
on mankinds part even if mankind hasn't contributed to the problem.

Remove the current contribution being made by the USA and we are still on
a collision course with a very different enironment.

As for too much CO2, remember H2O is a basic requirement for human survival
but, too much of it can kill you.

Paul
--
All hail the savior algae.
--
Excuse me, I'll be right back.  I have to log onto a server in Romania
and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information
before they suspend my accounts.
--
Working the rockie road of the G&PX
John Fraser - 24 May 2008 14:53 GMT
>>>> Regardless of Al (Knows nothing) Gore, CO2 is not bad.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> --
> Working the rockie road of the G&PX

   Aye.  If the Ice Age killed the animals off, then is it safe to assume
their methane by products warmed the Earth after their demise?

   Well, you have Americans like Henry Ford and JD Rockefeller to thank.

Cheers,
John
Paul Newhouse - 24 May 2008 15:20 GMT
> Aye.  If the Ice Age killed the animals off, then is it safe to assume
> their methane by products warmed the Earth after their demise?
>
> Well, you have Americans like Henry Ford and JD Rockefeller to thank.

Thank them for the Ice Age or the decomposing bodies?

Paul
--
Excuse me, I'll be right back.  I have to log onto a server in Romania
and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information
before they suspend my accounts.

Working the rockie road of the G&PX
Greg Procter - 23 May 2008 19:32 GMT
> >> Regardless of Al (Knows nothing) Gore, CO2 is not bad.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> bringing things back to normal, whatever that is.  Perhaps road apples will
> become fashionable again.

The depletion of the fossil fuels won't bring things back to normal, it
will only end the steady increase to the steadily worsening situation
from burning fossil fuels.
It's like you sh.tting in your bath-tub. When you stop, the bathtub will
remain full of faeces.
(sorry for the odious comparison, but it's a good analogy)
Steve Caple - 23 May 2008 20:42 GMT
> The depletion of the fossil fuels won't bring things back to normal, it
> will only end the steady increase to the steadily worsening situation
> from burning fossil fuels.
> It's like you sh.tting in your bath-tub. When you stop, the bathtub will
> remain full of faeces.
> (sorry for the odious comparison, but it's a good analogy)

Hey, ya teach what ya know. <g>

Signature

Steve

John Fraser - 24 May 2008 14:54 GMT
>> >> Regardless of Al (Knows nothing) Gore, CO2 is not bad.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> remain full of faeces.
> (sorry for the odious comparison, but it's a good analogy)

   Not a problem.

Cheers,
John
Greg Procter - 23 May 2008 05:02 GMT
> "Greg Procter" <
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> green things alive.  There's less CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was
> 1000 years ago.

Hi Roger,
the act of freezing the CO2 is what would produce more warming! No
mechanical action is 100% efficient so more energy must be put into the
action of freezing than can be given out in returning the CO2 to room
temperature.
The amounts of carbon and oxygen on Earth are fairly constant, ignoring
the odd nuclear reaction, space shot and asteroids falling to earth. I
wasn't around 1000 years ago so I can't comment about the comparisons
between the atmospheres.

Regards,
Greg.P.
Wolf Kirchmeir - 23 May 2008 13:47 GMT
> "Greg Procter" <
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> green things alive.  There's less CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was
> 1000 years ago.

What's the number now? What was it in 1008 AD? Where did you get those
numbers, Roger?

Signature

wolf k.

mark - 24 May 2008 01:41 GMT
>> "Greg Procter" <
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> What's the number now? What was it in 1008 AD? Where did you get those
> numbers, Roger?

Um, I just saw a report mentioned in mainstream media that said that it's
been going up since the 1970's, when they started taking counts, and that
it's the highest in I forget how many thousand years (this article was a
week or two ago).

       mark
Anthony - 24 May 2008 01:59 GMT
>>> "Greg Procter" <
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>        mark

So how would the media know it's the highest in several thousand
years. BTW a thousand years agoi or so CO2 was 17 times current level
and the tempearture was dropping.

Source a book called "Earth" by  
Dorling Kindersley. :)
My Website:
http://gannetweb.awardspace.com
Delete the You Know What to email me!
Wolf Kirchmeir - 24 May 2008 03:31 GMT
>>>> "Greg Procter" <
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> years. BTW a thousand years agoi or so CO2 was 17 times current level
> and the tempearture was dropping.

Source of Kindersley's figures? (1000 years ago was 1008)

> Source a book called "Earth" by  
> Dorling Kindersley. :)
> My Website:
> http://gannetweb.awardspace.com
> Delete the You Know What to email me!

Signature

wolf k.

Roger T. - 24 May 2008 07:41 GMT
>>>> There's less CO2 in the atmosphere now than there
>>>> was 1000 years ago.
>>>
>>> What's the number now? What was it in 1008 AD? Where did you get those
>>> numbers, Roger?

> So how would the media know it's the highest in several thousand
> years. BTW a thousand years ago or so CO2 was 17 times current level
> and the tempearture was dropping.

Which is what I wrote above.

> Source a book called "Earth" by
> Dorling Kindersley. :)

Thanks Anthony, saves me looking up the quote.

--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude:  48° 25' North
Longitude:  123° 21' West
Wolf Kirchmeir - 24 May 2008 13:07 GMT
>>>>> There's less CO2 in the atmosphere now than there
>>>>> was 1000 years ago.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Latitude:  48° 25' North
> Longitude:  123° 21' West

17 times current level (around 400ppm) would put it at about 6800 ppm
(parts per million). Where in the book you cite is that figure given?

BTW, Dorling Kindersley is a publisher of reference books in several
series (eg Eyewitness Books, DK Guides, etc.) The book cited by you was
edited by J Luhr.

Signature

wolf k.

mark - 25 May 2008 03:41 GMT
>>>> "Greg Procter" <
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Source a book called "Earth" by
> Dorling Kindersley. :)

Dunno who that is. I googled her, but find mainly art references, and
nothing, for example, on wikipedia. The report I mentioned, I think I was
the link on either the Guardian, or via slashdot, and if I remember
correctly, it was in something like Nature.

       mark
Steve Caple - 25 May 2008 04:05 GMT
> Dunno who that is. I googled her,

I think "she"'s a publishing house.

Signature

Steve

Michael Creem - 26 May 2008 19:32 GMT
> Back in the late 40's or early 50's, The Model Railroader had an
> article about essentially live steam locos in O gauge that used dry
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Dale

There was  a later article or answer to a letter to the editor in MR that
said that the dry ice did not evaporate fast enough to keep the engine
going.
Michael
Roger T. - 26 May 2008 19:55 GMT
"Michael Creem"

> There was  a later article or answer to a letter to the editor in MR that
> said that the dry ice did not evaporate fast enough to keep the engine
> going.

We use "dry ice" a fair bit in theatre, it produces the low lying ground fog
about a foot or two deep..

When we use if, we break blocks of dry ice, about 16" x 8" x 8" inches into
fist sized lumps.

On cue, when the dry ice is needed, it is dumped into a large, like a 45
gallon drum, that has hot water inside.  This is what creates the fog, the
hot water.  Without hot water the ice will take too long to evaporate and
produce so little gas as to be useless.  So, a "dry ice" steam loco will not
work without hot water.  Kinda defeats the purpose somehow, doesn't it?

--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude:  48° 25' North
Longitude:  123° 21' West
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.