 |
 | 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 / August 2009Restarting an Unused HO Engine
I thought I try the Subject engine on the tracks, but there's no movemen. A hum comes from the engine and the voltage across the track goes from 0 to 14 dc as I turn the transformer dial. It's been about 4 years since I took the engine out for a track run. I vaguely recall that some application of oil on the wheels or engine got it going. Possibly it needs some steel wool work on the tracks. Comments? > I thought I try the Subject engine on the tracks, but there's no > movemen. A hum comes from the engine and the voltage across the track > goes from 0 to 14 dc as I turn the transformer dial. It's been about 4 > years since I took the engine out for a track run. I vaguely recall that > some application of oil on the wheels or engine got it going. Possibly > it needs some steel wool work on the tracks. Comments --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wouldn't use steel wool. The motor will pick up the fragments. If you don't have any kind of track cleaner, you could use a bit of alcohol or an eraser, or a piece of masonite or wood to clean the track. Rub your fingers on the rail to determine if it's dirty. Bill Not knowing anything about the engine I will throw a few things out that may or may not be helpful. If it is an older engine it may be powered by rubber bands which have long since decinergated(sp?). Take the top off the engine and see if the motor is moving at all. It may be moving but without the rubber bands it can't turn the wheels. If it doesn't need rubber bands it may just have some crud in the armature that needs cleaning out. Another thought I had was: is it a European made engine that needs 220 to run on? I have a couple of them and have not even tried to set it up here in the states. Karl > I thought I try the Subject engine on the tracks, but there's no > movemen. A hum comes from the engine and the voltage across the track > goes from 0 to 14 dc as I turn the transformer dial. It's been about 4 > years since I took the engine out for a track run. I vaguely recall that > some application of oil on the wheels or engine got it going. Possibly > it needs some steel wool work on the tracks. Comments? > Not knowing anything about the engine I will throw a few things out that > may or may not be helpful. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> that some application of oil on the wheels or engine got it going. >> Possibly it needs some steel wool work on the tracks. Comments? I think this is all American made. I bought it 22 years ago for my kids, and am about to sell it. I used sand paper on the tracks, and wheels. I think it was most effective on the tracks. Founde the exploded view of the engine. The engine has looped about 30' of track several times now. It's a two level system, and I suspect it needs more work to pull cars up the incline. Progress anyway. I may need to look inside the engine, and oil (light?) as necessary. More work on the tracks will probably help too. I think the engine is Athern. Yes, EMD SD-9. Cars too. The incline is worse than I thought. I have the layout supported on an incline temporarily. I guess it still has some go! >> Not knowing anything about the engine I will throw a few things out that >> may or may not be helpful. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >The incline is worse than I thought. I have the layout supported on an >incline temporarily. I guess it still has some go! The bands referred to are often used on the insulated, traction side of the driver wheels themselves. Look for a groove cut in the wheel where the bands would normally be. If the wheels themselves are smooth then they probably don't need the rubber traction bands. Use a gray eraser on the tracks, one that has grit in it for typing erasure. That will clean the tracks and leave only minimal debris but nothing that will cause any harm to the engine. Use another eraser type, the gum eraser, to clean your armature on the motor after you disassemble it - should you decide to do that. The gum eraser won't scratch it. If your brushes need replacing from wear or deterioration, you will either have to buy them or make new ones. Not that hard, actually. If your armature is gouged, it may need resurfacing by a machinist. Good luck with the engine. -- Ray >>> Not knowing anything about the engine I will throw a few things out that >>> may or may not be helpful. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > either have to buy them or make new ones. Not that hard, actually. If > your armature is gouged, it may need resurfacing by a machinist. If it needs resurfacing by a machinist, it would be cheaper to just sell 'as is'. I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. >I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. The repair could be a labor of love rather than one of dollar value. -- Ray >>I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. > > The repair could be a labor of love rather than one of dollar value. > -- > Ray The OP wants to Sell it. >>>I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. >> >> The repair could be a labor of love rather than one of dollar value. > >The OP wants to Sell it. That came up later. His original post said nothing about selling it. -- Ray >>>>I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Ray Even if it did, who in their right mind would get an armature resurfaced by a machinist when you could buy a DCC equipped loco for the same price or stick in a new motor for a lot less! >>>>>I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >a machinist when you could buy a DCC equipped loco for the same price or >stick in a new motor for a lot less! I have my own milling machine. Deal. -- Ray >>>>>>I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I have my own milling machine. Deal. That's not "getting the armature resurfaced by a machinist", that's doing it yourself. Even if you are a machinist. >>>>>>>I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >That's not "getting the armature resurfaced by a machinist", that's doing it >yourself. Even if you are a machinist. So what? You wouldn't do it. Others might. It remains an option even though you don't like it. What's your problem here? Do you really feel such an overwhelming need to "win" on this issue? A resurfacing of the armature on a miniature engine is really not that costly. But then, you will never know. -- Ray >>>>>>>>I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > -- > Ray Have a nice day, Ray. Be sure to get the last word in. On 8/13/2009 6:13 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: >> That's not "getting the armature resurfaced by a machinist", that's >> doing it yourself. Even if you are a machinist. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > such an overwhelming need to "win" on this issue? A resurfacing of the > armature on a miniature engine is really not that costly. Before this thread gets out of hand and turns into yet another pissing match (curious how many threads in which R. Haddad participates go that way), it should be pointed out that a loco commutator needing machining is, once again, probably the wrong prescription. For a loco that's been run hard and long, maybe. One that's basically been stored away for 20+ years? Believe me, the commutator does *not* need machining, either by oneself or by a professional. Deal.  SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism Agreed. Lets look at the simple logical things first, the ones that are known to go bad with an Athearn loco. Things like a broken gear or lack of lubrication! -- Bob May rmay at nethere.com http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net >Agreed. Lets look at the simple logical things first, the ones that are >known to go bad with an Athearn loco. Things like a broken gear or lack of >lubrication! That was a last resort. You guys are so intent on making yourselves the authorities on everything that nobody else can even offer a solution. Read what I wrote again if you have to. -- Ray On 8/13/2009 11:28 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: >>Agreed. Lets look at the simple logical things first, the ones that are >>known to go bad with an Athearn loco. Things like a broken gear or lack of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the authorities on everything that nobody else can even offer a > solution. Read what I wrote again if you have to. OK, let's look at what you wrote: > The bands referred to are often used on the insulated, traction side > of the driver wheels themselves. Of course, it turns out that the OP's loco doesn't have traction tires, as I had guessed, so this isn't helpful. > Use a gray eraser on the tracks, one that has grit in it for typing > erasure. Not what I would have chosen, but should work; fair enough. > If your brushes need replacing from wear or deterioration, you will > either have to buy them or make new ones. Not that hard, actually. If > your armature is gouged, it may need resurfacing by a machinist. Brush wear is unlikely to be an issue for a loco which was evidently little used and then stored, let alone a "gouged" commutator (what you meant type instead of "armature"), so again not helpful. So you gave one small piece of helpful advice. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 8/13/2009 6:13 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Deal. Who is his usual foil? I was knee deep in the big muddy when I realized pushing on was senseless. LD wrote:. >> On 8/13/2009 6:13 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: ... > Who is his usual foil? I was knee deep in the big muddy when I realized > pushing on was senseless. Where is Greg Procter when we need him to debate with Mr Haddad? On 8/14/2009 2:34 AM a_a_a spake thus: > LD wrote:. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Where is Greg Procter when we need him to debate with Mr Haddad? Bingo. In our last episode, Mr. Procter and Mr. Haddad had gotten a room together. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >>> Who is his usual foil? I was knee deep in the big muddy when I realized >>> pushing on was senseless. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In our last episode, Mr. Procter and Mr. Haddad had gotten a room together. Wow - a procterologist who makes house calls! SignatureSteve >>>> Who is his usual foil? I was knee deep in the big muddy when I realized >>>> pushing on was senseless. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Wow - a procterologist who makes house calls! The ignorant oafs gather. One can only wonder . . . -- Ray > The ignorant oafs gather. One can only wonder . . . Yep. Everyone is ignorant of how to deal with someone who is so utterly bizarre as to suggest machining the 'armature' as a solution for a virtually never-used loco not running after 20 years of non-use. We can all only wonder. >> The ignorant oafs gather. One can only wonder . . . > > Yep. Everyone is ignorant of how to deal with someone who is so utterly > bizarre as to suggest machining the 'armature' as a solution for a > virtually never-used loco not running after 20 years of non-use. We can > all only wonder. To my chagrin, I wondered 'out loud' ... >>> The ignorant oafs gather. One can only wonder . . . >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >To my chagrin, I wondered 'out loud' ... Then I see defeat in your life. You give up too easily if you would not consider machining a motor as a last resort. Remember, only you guys suggested that it was not a good option. I suggested a few others long before I got to that one. The rest of you oafs all pretended that wasn't the case. Why is only anyone's guess. Typical behavior from guys with over inflated egos such as yourselves. Deal. -- Ray > Then I see defeat in your life. You give up too easily if you would > not consider machining a motor as a last resort. Remember, only you > guys suggested that it was not a good option. More to the point, only one guy - you - suggested that it WAS a good option. >> Then I see defeat in your life. You give up too easily if you would >> not consider machining a motor as a last resort. Remember, only you >> guys suggested that it was not a good option. > >More to the point, only one guy - you - suggested that it WAS a good option. It is. Not the first option but a good one if necessary. Just because you can't do it don't complain to me. -- Ray On 8/15/2009 10:56 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: >>> Then I see defeat in your life. You give up too easily if you would >>> not consider machining a motor as a last resort. Remember, only you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is. Not the first option but a good one if necessary. Just because > you can't do it don't complain to me. While you're at it, why not suggest rewinding the armature, re-gaussing the magnets and replacing the motor bearings? Fat lot of good any of these would do. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 8/15/2009 10:56 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the magnets and replacing the motor bearings? Fat lot of good any of > these would do. People used to do that.... wolf k. On 8/15/2009 12:08 PM Wolf K spake thus: >> While you're at it, why not suggest rewinding the armature, re-gaussing >> the magnets and replacing the motor bearings? Fat lot of good any of >> these would do. > > People used to do that.... Well, of course they did. But look, Wolf, it's a matter of context. I think it's safe to say that the OP is not a scratchbuilder and is not the least bit interested in learning the nitty-gritty of a complete motor teardown and rebuild. (Maybe he is, but I doubt it.) So in the context of his question--how to get a little-run, long-stored loco running--suggesting he check these things is, well, silly. Obviously, the first thing to do is to check and clean the wheels. And the track. You know, the easy, obvious stuff. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >Obviously, the first thing to do is to check and clean the wheels. And >the track. You know, the easy, obvious stuff. Oh? And who began by telling him that? Well, that would be me, of course but you are more than happy to ignore that. Nice one, David. -- Ray > On 8/15/2009 12:08 PM Wolf K spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Obviously, the first thing to do is to check and clean the wheels. And > the track. You know, the easy, obvious stuff. I was just waxing nostalgic. ;-) wolf k. > I was just waxing nostalgic. ;-) I'd sooner wax wroth. Then we can have Roth wax Haddad and everyone will be happy. ~Pete >> I was just waxing nostalgic. ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >~Pete Lizzie Borden took an axe, Gave her mother forty wax. When she sore what she had dun, Gave her farther forte won. > Lizzie Borden took an axe, > Gave her mother forty wax. > When she sore what she had dun, > Gave her farther forte won. True fact: When I was a kid, our local ice cream vending trucks all used to play the melody to the above kid's rhyme/jingle* to let the neighborhood children know they were coming. I have a feeling that the ice cream truck people probably didn't know where it had originated, though... (I always thought it would be cool to have a 1/87 scale ice cream truck parked somewhere on a '50s layout surrounded by children and with an endless recording of that tune playing almost subliminally in the background to see if anybody ever made the connection.) *Children -bless their black little hearts- preserve and originate some wonderfully grim rhymes. For instance, the macabre "Little Willy" rhymes were still popular with kids when I was in grade school. Herewith a railroad-oriented example: Willie on the railroad tracks Didn't hear the whistle squeal Now the engine's backing up Scraping Willie off the wheel. And one that isn't: Little Willie in a spell Pitched his sister down the well Now his parents have no daughter And they boil all the water. Cheerily, ~Pete On 8/16/2009 1:10 AM Twibil spake thus: > *Children -bless their black little hearts- preserve and originate > some wonderfully grim rhymes. For instance, the macabre "Little Willy" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now the engine's backing up > Scraping Willie off the wheel. Of course you probably know that "Ring Around the Rosy" is a reference to the Black Plague. And it's not children who "preserve and originate" that grimness, but those who write and tell them stories and songs. Most children are completely oblivious to the grim references; I know I was. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism On 8/16/2009 1:07 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus: > On 8/16/2009 1:10 AM Twibil spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Of course you probably know that "Ring Around the Rosy" is a reference > to the Black Plague. Hmm, Snopes says I'm wrong about that: http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.asp Although I can't say I'm totally convinced by their arguments. ---------------------------------------------- Speaking of gruesome railroad-related ditties, remember this one? A peanut sat on the railroad track His heart was all a-flutter Along came a railroad train Toot-toot! Peanut butter. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > Speaking of gruesome railroad-related ditties, remember this one? > > A peanut sat on the railroad track > His heart was all a-flutter > Along came a railroad train > Toot-toot! Peanut butter. Nope, that's a new one to me! (And the poet/musician in me demands I point out that it doesn't scan worth a darn, either!) ~Pete > On 8/16/2009 1:10 AM Twibil spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Of course you probably know that "Ring Around the Rosy" is a reference > to the Black Plague. Snopes says it isn't, but I'm with you: I think it's quite likely that it is. Rhymes and melodies can hang around for a *long* time, as is evidenced by the fact that almost everyone raised in our western culture can still hum the melody to "Greensleeves" right up until this day, and that tune dates back to at *least* 200 years before the 1665 London plague.. (For the musically bereft; Britain's King Henry the 8th [1485-1547] wrote a well-known set of words to the tune, but the melody is thought to be much older than that. It may have come across the English Channel with the Normans in 1066. Alas, the Normans had no railroads.) > And it's not children who "preserve and originate" that grimness, but > those who write and tell them stories and songs. Most children are > completely oblivious to the grim references; I know I was. There I *dis*agree with you. Children are naturally blood-thirsty little savages who must be carefully brought up if you wish them to some day become civilized adults, and even then it doesn't always work. Re-read "Lord of the Flies" and consider how Ann Coulter turned out... On 8/16/2009 4:59 PM Twibil spake thus: > Rhymes and melodies can hang around for a *long* time, as is > evidenced by the fact that almost everyone raised in our western > culture can still hum the melody to "Greensleeves" right up until > this day, and that tune dates back to at *least* 200 years before the > 1665 London plague.. ... and is of course a reference to "camp followers" (i.e., prostitutes), whose sleeves were stained green because, well, figure it out for yourselves. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism On 8/16/2009 4:59 PM Twibil spake thus: >> And it's not children who "preserve and originate" that grimness, but >> those who write and tell them stories and songs. Most children are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Re-read "Lord of the Flies" and consider how Ann Coulter turned out... Well, we sorta agree and sorta don't. I don't dispute what you said about rugrats^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hkids and adult abominations and all; but for the most part children are not responsible for their own repertoire. Which makes ya wonder what kind of sick and twisted adults think up this stuff. Of course, this excludes my best friend at about age 10-11 teaching me all the verses to "Barnacle Bill" while sleeping out in his backyard in a tent ... Who's that knooocking at my door? Who's that knooocking at my door? Who's that knooocking at my door? asked the fair young maiden ... SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism On Aug 15, 9:45 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote: > Lizzie Borden took an axe, > Gave her mother forty wax. > When she sore what she had dun, > Gave her farther forte won. True fact: When I was a kid, our local ice cream vending trucks all used to play the melody to the above kid's rhyme/jingle* to let the neighborhood children know they were coming. I have a feeling that the ice cream truck people probably didn't know where it had originated, though... (I always thought it would be cool to have a 1/87 scale ice cream truck parked somewhere on a '50s layout surrounded by children and with an endless recording of that tune playing almost subliminally in the background to see if anybody ever made the connection.) =================================================================== I'm going to do a Pennywise the Clown one of these days. On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Wolf K <weki...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > I was just waxing nostalgic. ;-) I'd sooner wax wroth. Then we can have Roth wax Haddad and everyone will be happy. ~Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I was close to lamenting and rending my garments ... On 8/15/2009 7:44 PM Twibil spake thus: >> I was just waxing nostalgic. ;-) > > I'd sooner wax wroth. > > Then we can have Roth wax Haddad and everyone will be happy. Or, as Allan Sherman sang, he'll have to face the drapes of Roth. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > > Then we can have Roth wax Haddad and everyone will be happy. > > Or, as Allan Sherman sang, he'll have to face the drapes of Roth. Or "The Grabes of Raath"; a science fiction tale that featured a displaced family of migrant-farm-working aliens who'd been fleeing a galaxy-wide depression for so long that they'd lost track of their home world (Raath) entirely and were seeking repatriation help from a welfare worker. Turned out that they'd accidentally teleported here to our galaxy from Andromeda, and there was no way to get them back home. ~Pete >On 8/15/2009 10:56 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the magnets and replacing the motor bearings? Fat lot of good any of >these would do. Because, unlike you, I am not dumb enough to believe those things would help, David. Get some help, mate. -- Ray >> While you're at it, why not suggest rewinding the armature, re-gaussing >> the magnets and replacing the motor bearings? Fat lot of good any of >> these would do. > > Because, unlike you, I am not dumb enough to believe those things > would help, David. Get some help, mate. But you are dumb enough to believe machining the 'armature' would help, Ray. Get some help, mate. >>> While you're at it, why not suggest rewinding the armature, re-gaussing >>> the magnets and replacing the motor bearings? Fat lot of good any of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >But you are dumb enough to believe machining the 'armature' >would help, Ray. Get some help, mate. After two other suggestions which you fail to acknowledge. That makes you the dummy, mate. -- Ray >>> Because, unlike you, I am not dumb enough to believe those things >>> would help, David. Get some help, mate. >> But you are dumb enough to believe machining the 'armature' >> would help, Ray. Get some help, mate. > After two other suggestions which you fail to acknowledge. That makes > you the dummy, mate. One can just imagine Haddad being asked the value of 2 + 2. Haddad offers three suggestions: 2 + 2 = 116, 3333 or 8889999887. When challenged about the absurdity of the last suggestion, Haddad again draws attention to the first two. > LD wrote:. >>> On 8/13/2009 6:13 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Where is Greg Procter when we need him to debate with Mr Haddad? Ah, that face rings a bell ... >> LD wrote:. >>>> On 8/13/2009 6:13 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ah, that face rings a bell ... Waving the white flag already? No surprise. -- Ray >>>> Not knowing anything about the engine I will throw a few things out >>>> that [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > If it needs resurfacing by a machinist, it would be cheaper to just sell > 'as is'. I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. It's not just the engine, I'm selling the entire layout. >>>>> Not knowing anything about the engine I will throw a few things out >>>>> that [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> 'as is'. I doubt a 22 year old Athearn SD-9 would be worth the cost. > It's not just the engine, I'm selling the entire layout. But would you want to get a machinist involved? With a 20 something Athearn loco? >>> Not knowing anything about the engine I will throw a few things out that >>> may or may not be helpful. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > -- > Ray I'll take a look for the gray erasers, but typing! Does anyone make typewriters any more? Bands on the wheel? Are we talking about rubber? >>>> Not knowing anything about the engine I will throw a few things out >>>> that may or may not be helpful. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > I'll take a look for the gray erasers, but typing! Does anyone make > typewriters any more? Bands on the wheel? Are we talking about rubber? A kitchen sponge with the blue or green scrubber side works just fine. And yes, rubber bands on the driving wheels on some older locos. Aided traction for light weight locos. >>>>> Not knowing anything about the engine I will throw a few things out >>>>> that may or may not be helpful. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > And yes, rubber bands on the driving wheels on some older locos. Aided > traction for light weight locos. The wheels are metal. I'll try a scrubber or some such device. On 8/12/2009 5:59 PM LD spake thus: > A kitchen sponge with the blue or green scrubber side works just > fine. And yes, rubber bands on the driving wheels on some older > locos. Aided traction for light weight locos. I don't know why so many people automatically jump to the conclusion that if it's an old loco, it probably has traction tires (rubber bands around the rims of some of the driving wheels). I'm going to guess that his loco doesn't have traction tires. I've seen lots of circa-20-year-old Athearns, and they don't have them. Maybe the OP can report back to us on this. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >On 8/12/2009 5:59 PM LD spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that if it's an old loco, it probably has traction tires (rubber bands >around the rims of some of the driving wheels). They don't. They do howvever know that Athearn used rubber bands from pulleys on the motor shaft to the wheels before they switched to universal joints and gear towers. >I'm going to guess that his loco doesn't have traction tires. I've seen >lots of circa-20-year-old Athearns, and they don't have them. Lots of circa-30-year-old Athearnd had rubber band drive, however. >Maybe the OP can report back to us on this. On 8/12/2009 6:42 PM Christopher A. Lee spake thus: >> I'm going to guess that his loco doesn't have traction tires. I've >> seen lots of circa-20-year-old Athearns, and they don't have them. > > Lots of circa-30-year-old Athearnd had rubber band drive, however. Since the loco is only 20-something years old, I'm willing to lay odds that it uses the modern drive arrangement (shafts w/u-joints) rather than the old-fashioned rubber-band drive. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > rubber bands When I first saw Athearn and rubber bands my thoughts sprag to the over-40 Athearn ATSF freight scheme F7 with the lopsidededly applied cigar band, that when retrieved from a long lost storage box had totally deteriorated (more apt word than degenerated, however spelled) rubber bands that certainly kept it from moving - because they were part of the drive train. What did they call that, Hi-F drive? see this: http://cgi.ebay.com.my/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140332416866 Somebody paid over $20 for that! I guess they really wanted a shell with that paint scheme! SignatureSteve > On 8/12/2009 5:59 PM LD spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if it's an old loco, it probably has traction tires (rubber bands around > the rims of some of the driving wheels). I didn't. Somebody else suggested it and the OP asked a question. Notice I said "some" older locos. > I'm going to guess that his loco doesn't have traction tires. I've seen > lots of circa-20-year-old Athearns, and they don't have them. > > Maybe the OP can report back to us on this. >On 8/12/2009 5:59 PM LD spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that if it's an old loco, it probably has traction tires (rubber bands >around the rims of some of the driving wheels). Nobody here jumped to that conclusion. Everyone said to check for it. Why did YOU jump to that conclusion? >I'm going to guess that his loco doesn't have traction tires. I've seen >lots of circa-20-year-old Athearns, and they don't have them. > >Maybe the OP can report back to us on this. He did. No bands. -- Ray >I'll take a look for the gray erasers, but typing! Does anyone make >typewriters any more? Bands on the wheel? Are we talking about rubber? Office supply shops have them. Usually they are a split eraser. Pencil type on one side and ink type on the other. The ink type is the gritty one. The bands are rubber and do degrade with age. Look closely at the drive wheels to see if there are any groves cut in the flat part the touches the track. If so, replacement bands can be purchased from hobby shops. The wheel diameter and band width must be known to order them. Break out the micrometer! You can also make your own in some cases by using medical rubber tubing. A dowel and single edged razor blade can provide you with a lifetime supply from a single length of hose. The rubber has to be stretched beyond belief to get it on the wheel so experimentation with the cut will be necessary. Half the fun of getting to the destination is the journey. Enjoy. -- Ray > replacement bands Has anybody tried Frog Snot? SignatureSteve >> replacement bands > > Has anybody tried Frog Snot? Saw a review of that recently in one of the rags. Reviewer was a "name" in the hobby and, of course, I can't recall who. Anyway his conclusion was that it Works. Some of it is coming back to me as I type - may have been in O Scale Trains. >> replacement bands > >Has anybody tried Frog Snot? Is that the stuff that holds those cover CDs to computer magazines? That stuff could allow you to drive your car upside down on a bridge. Well, almost. -- Ray > >> If it is an older engine it may be powered by rubber bands which have > >> long since decinergated(sp?). Take the top off the engine and see if the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The bands referred to are often used on the insulated, traction side > of the driver wheels themselves. No. The bands he's referring to are not traction tires but actual rubber bands that looped around both the driveshaft and the axles of older Athearn diesels, forming part of the drive system. They rotted away very quickly as they sat right next to the open-framed motor that filled the diesel's shell with rubber-eating ozone every time it operated. The bands also didn't provide much in the way of gear reduction, which is why those early Athearn diesels were known for their ability to run at scale speeds approaching 200 MPH. There was also the "BOIIIING! phenomenom" which occured during rapid throttle movements, when the rubber bands would stretch and release several times; causing the loco to speed up and slow down several times before finally stabilizing at a given throttle settting. ~Pete >> >> If it is an older engine it may be powered by rubber bands which have >> >> long since decinergated(sp?). Take the top off the engine and see if the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >No. Yes, those are the bands I was referring to. -- Ray > I thought I try the Subject engine on the tracks, but there's no > movement. A hum comes from the engine and the voltage across the track > goes from 0 to 14 dc as I turn the transformer dial. It's been about 4 > years since I took the engine out for a track run. I vaguely recall that > some application of oil on the wheels or engine got it going. Possibly > it needs some steel wool work on the tracks. Comments? In connection with the other thread stemming from my post, I think through some combination of erasers, scrubbers, and such the track and (metal) wheels will be taken care of. The engine makes it around the track fairly well after the use of sandpaper to the rails. This train set and layout is 22 years old, and has set idle for 99.9% of that time hanging from chains in our former and present garage. I'm in the process of selling it. It never connected with my kids when they were 12-13. Perhaps 10-12 would have made a bigger impact. They were caught up in sports and the dawn of the personal computer age. When I was that age I was well into trains, but bowed in by the time I was 14. Fun and useful to my life, but I moved far away from those interests. All technical and science. I sill occasionally happen on big layouts in various communities to note the changes. They are going digital now. If after all this time there's something to worry about, I think it's lubrication in the gears and such under the body. I saved the exploded diagram of the engine, and it looks like there are key points that might require a spot of light oil. I'll take care of that tomorrow. >> I thought I try the Subject engine on the tracks, but there's no >> movement. A hum comes from the engine and the voltage across the track [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > diagram of the engine, and it looks like there are key points that might > require a spot of light oil. I'll take care of that tomorrow. I had a similar problem with a loco that had been in storage for about 15 years - Seemed the oil or grease applied in the factory had 'gone off' in some way - I was in luck as a friend had an ultrasonic cleaner (usually used for jewelry) which got a surprising amount of dirt out of the chassis/engine - Used a little sewing machine oil to re-lubricate and it ran better than when new. Mike First off, the engine is making noise so it is picking up power from the track quite well. Older Athearn engines used a rubber band drive where the shaft of the motor is extened over the drive wheels and a rubber band goes from the shat down to the wheels. The axles on the wheels were large diameeter (almost as big as the wheels themselves) and that was how the engine moved. Later engines (if you have the SD9 - 6 axles on the loco) you will have the gear drive which is easy to work on although a bit harder than the earlier band drive, and the gears themselves can run dry although some light application of grease whon't hurt them. Be sure to use oils and greases that are suitable for plastics as cheap 3 in 1 oil isn't. The motor does need a drop on each bearing as does the top shaft of the trucks which take the power from the motor. For an aid in testing the loco, there is a metal piece that goes from one truck across the top of the motor and to the other truck and this is one side of the track power. The other side of the track power is the frame and if you connect one of the power wires to the frame and the other to the bar across the top, you will be able to make the loco run. I'll also note that if the loco is overloaded with cars, it will just spin the wheels and not really go anywhere but you will see the loco shaking in such a case. Athearn parts are available from the factory. Some of the plastic gears have ben known to split and that will stop a loco so inspect all of the gears for a spider crack from the center out. -- Bob May rmay at nethere.com http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net ... > such a case. > Athearn parts are available from the factory. Some of the plastic gears [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay > http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net See <http://drop.io/hxcjky6/asset/ho-engine-jpg> for an exploded view of the engine. What oil should I use? Light oil of some sort? How do I get the body off the supporting chassis? Use a think straight edge screw driver to pry it off? I don't see any screws. On 8/16/2009 3:49 PM W. eWatson spake thus: > See <http://drop.io/hxcjky6/asset/ho-engine-jpg> for an exploded view of > the engine. > > What oil should I use? Light oil of some sort? Yes. Best would probably be LaBelle, available at a local hobby shop if you're lucky enough to have one nearby (a diminishing breed), or online at several places (f'rinstance, http://con-cor.com/lablubes.htm). If you can't find LaBelle, use any decent light oil, like 3-in-one (yes, Virginia, it's safe to use on model railroad locos) or sewing machine oil. > How do I get the body off the supporting chassis? Use a think > straight edge screw driver to pry it off? I don't see any screws. No screws. You need to gently spread the sides of the body at the center away from the frame. If your hands alone don't do the trick, try to get something thin in there, like a knife blade or thin piece of metal. Not all that hard to do. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 8/16/2009 3:49 PM W. eWatson spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > something thin in there, like a knife blade or thin piece of metal. Not > all that hard to do. Good. Thanks. I pried it apart. Pretty simple inside. I hope the exploded view provided above clarifies some of the mysteries other respondents were probing. >> On 8/16/2009 3:49 PM W. eWatson spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Yes. Best would probably be LaBelle, available at a local hobby shop ... > Good. Thanks. I pried it apart. Pretty simple inside. > > I hope the exploded view provided above clarifies some of the mysteries > other respondents were probing. Just to make sure I'm doing the right thing, take a look at the exploded view in the link. A part of the diagram show the motor, fly wheels, and so on. Starting on the left, I would think I should put a small drop of oil on the worm bearing, worm & shaft, coupling?, and worm gear at the right end. The worm&shaft look like they are covered with the housing shown in the diagram, so maybe it would be difficult to get oil in there. Maybe the L-shaped light bracket can be detached, so the housing can be removed? The bracket is resistant to finger tugs, so maybe a long nosed plier. The diagram doesn't show enough details of the motor, but the left end has about a 3/8 to 1/2" copper shaft, 1/4" dia?, that spans the distance between the motor and flywheel. A 1/8 or so, band encircles the copper cylinder. There are electrical contacts on the top and bottom, so I would think there's no need to oil anything there. On 8/17/2009 12:41 PM W. eWatson spake thus: > Just to make sure I'm doing the right thing, take a look at the exploded > view in the link. A part of the diagram show the motor, fly wheels, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can be removed? The bracket is resistant to finger tugs, so maybe a long > nosed plier. You could lube those points. However, I seriously doubt that lack of lubrication is the cause of your loco not running properly. Think about it: the gears really require little or no lubrication, as they're made of Delrin or some equivalent plastic that's pretty much self-lubricating. If you do use oil, remember that just enough is too much. Really. Just a tiny drop on a toothpick is all you need. I'd concentrate more on the electrical pick-up from the wheels to the motor. One thing I really do not like about the way Athearn and other similar locos are put together is the iffy electical contacts, which rely on nice tight, clean connections between parts. I replaced this haphazard system with soldered wire connections on a few of my locos. Not saying you should do this, but do check all the electrical connection points, particularly from the trucks to the motor. This is another good reason not to over-lubricate and risk getting oil on the contact surfaces. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 8/17/2009 12:41 PM W. eWatson spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > another good reason not to over-lubricate and risk getting oil on the > contact surfaces. I agree with your assessment on the need for oil on those parts even not knowing they are made from Delrin. The simplicity of the chain of parts and virtually no lubrication suggested it doesn't need much, if any, lubrication. Actually, I haven't gotten to the "proof" for the need for anything. I've only run the engine. The layout has been solidly assembled for 22 years and suspended a huge majority of that time from a ceiling in tow garages. My kids didn't take to it, and I figured some off spring might. None that I care to wait for. Proof. Here's what I need to do rather than concentrate on the engine assembly as discussed. I need to start adding cars to the engine, and see if it makes it around the tracks. It used to make it fairly easily. If that shows some difficulty, then I need to, I think with your suggestions above, check electrical connections. You mention trucks to the motor. What does that mean? Wheels? I was told by a local shop owner to use sand paper on the wheels to the engine, but that's not so easy. They are tiny, and getting a good grip on them while sanding is not easy. > You mention trucks to the motor. What does that mean? Wheels? I was told > by a local shop owner to use sand paper on the wheels to the engine, but > that's not so easy. They are tiny, and getting a good grip on them while > sanding is not easy. The 'truck assemblies' are ---- The wheels, axles, the castings that contain the wheel/ axle assemblies, the gears contained within, the decorative 'side frame' castings that ride 'outside' the wheels. These assemblies pivot to allow the wheels to track around curves in the trackage. 'Sand paper' a BIG NO-NO. Usually a pencil eraser is course enough, an ink eraser if more abrasiveness is needed. Chuck D. On 8/17/2009 7:11 PM W. eWatson spake thus: > You mention trucks to the motor. What does that mean? Wheels? I was told > by a local shop owner to use sand paper on the wheels to the engine, but > that's not so easy. They are tiny, and getting a good grip on them while > sanding is not easy. I was talking about the electrical connections between the trucks and the motor. OK, now I've got an Athearn loco of the same vintage as yours in front of me. Here's the rundown of the electrical system: The truck assemblies each have two metal plates that ride on the bronze wheel bearings, so each plate picks up current from a pair of wheels. In the stock configuration, the plates on one side of the looco have that tab that sticks up and contacts the contact strip above the motor; the other pair of plates is under the bolster (the pivot for the trucks) and rides against the bottom of the frame. One side of the motor is connected to the contact strip; the other side contacts the frame via a spring contact. So you can see how all these connections are simply metal rubbing against metal, with only the weight of the loco itself pressing them together. Very prone to trouble. The loco I'm looking at was given to me by someone, and I see that it's been modified: someone soldered wires from the top contact strip on the motor to each of the truck tab contacts, and thrown away that long contact strip. It's actually pretty easy to do if you have any soldering skills and tools. Cleaning the wheels is probably the most important thing you can do to get the loco running better. There are lots of techniques. I'd advise against sandpaper, unless it's *really* fine (at least 600 grit). Better is to get the loco running upside-down (by using alligator clips to supply power) and use a Q-tip wetted with a solvent. Denatured alcohol works really well. Don't use rubbing alcohol. You should see lots of black gunk come off on the swab. This is something that needs to be done regularly, by the way, once you start actually running trains. Dirt continually builds up on the tracks and wheels. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 8/17/2009 7:11 PM W. eWatson spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > be done regularly, by the way, once you start actually running trains. > Dirt continually builds up on the tracks and wheels. Ah, running it upside down. I like that. I have denatured alcohol. I have no idea what grit I used for the initial sandpaper. It did work pretty well. Before using it, I couldn't get the engine to move at all. I should do it again though, probably with something less than 600 just to make sure. What about fine emery cloth? On 8/18/2009 7:20 PM W. eWatson spake thus: > I have no idea what grit I used for the initial sandpaper. It did work > pretty well. Before using it, I couldn't get the engine to move at all. > I should do it again though, probably with something less than 600 just > to make sure. What about fine emery cloth? I'd say don't use any abrasives. You probably don't need it to clean the gunk off the wheels, so why take chances with ruining the shape of the wheel treads? SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 8/18/2009 7:20 PM W. eWatson spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gunk off the wheels, so why take chances with ruining the shape of the > wheel treads? This thread certain has gotten long. I finally got around to using the denatured alcohol on the engines wheels, and it worked very well. Lots of grime. I'm now just into cleaning up other matters with the layout before I put it up for sale. My next post, soon, will be related to that topic. >> On 8/17/2009 7:11 PM W. eWatson spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > I should do it again though, probably with something less than 600 just > to make sure. What about fine emery cloth? OK, but use something finer than 600 - 1200 will do nicely. >Denatured alcohol works really well. Don't use rubbing alcohol. They are one and the same. -- Ray On 8/18/2009 8:31 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: >> Denatured alcohol works really well. Don't use rubbing alcohol. > > They are one and the same. [groan] Oh, no, more misstatements of fact from the master himself. Rubbing alcohol is isopropyl alcohol + water. Denatured alcohol is ethanol (ethyl alcohol), denatured with methanol (methyl alcohol). Not the same thing at all. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > [groan] Oh, no, more misstatements of fact from the master himself. Be glad he's in Oz and not back here adding his fantasies to the miasma of idiot fear and corporate disinformation being spewed out about health care reform by the likes of Limburger, Dobbs, Beck, Hannity, Bachman, Grassley, et al. Kinda makes you wish there WERE death panels to send those corpwhores to. SignatureSteve On 8/19/2009 12:16 AM Steve Caple spake thus: >> [groan] Oh, no, more misstatements of fact from the master himself. > > Be glad he's in Oz and not back here adding his fantasies to the miasma of > idiot fear and corporate disinformation being spewed out about health care > reform by the likes of Limburger, Dobbs, Beck, Hannity, Bachman, Grassley, > et al. Well, no. Since you brought it up, I'm much more annoyed and disgusted by the absolute f.ck-up Team Obama has made, and will make, of health care "reform". Reform, my a.s. As Chad Terhune and Keith Epstein write in /Business Week/, the insurance industry has already won the health care debate: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm The Dummycrats don't need the likes of Limburger, et al, to derail their miserable attempts at policy-making. I say they (the Democrats) don't deserve to hold power, not for ideological reasons (though there are many compelling ones), but simply because they're f.cking *incompetent*. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > the > insurance industry has already won the health care debate: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > deserve to hold power, not for ideological reasons (though there are > many compelling ones), but simply because they're f.cking *incompetent*. Wusses, I'd say. Scared of their own shadows, and their own Blue Dog insurance company whores like Conrad and Bogus - er, uh, Baucus. Almost as wussy as all the "hatred as a family value" types, that coalition of coke snorting fundamentalist rent-boy diddlers, skirt and dog collar wearing kiddie diddlers, and the magic underwear and overbreeding crowd who are just scared willyless by the thought of gays getting married. SignatureSteve >On 8/18/2009 8:31 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Not the same thing at all. They are the same. -- Ray >> On 8/18/2009 8:31 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Ray Where? If these two products are called by the same name in Oz, I'd be afraid to buy the stuff. Maybe you have different names for denatured alky and the stuff for rubbing. If so, what are they? Cheers, wolf k. >>> On 8/18/2009 8:31 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >afraid to buy the stuff. Maybe you have different names for denatured >alky and the stuff for rubbing. If so, what are they? Denaturing is done to rubbing alcohol. What these yokels are doing is confusing 90% alcohol with 70% alcohol. Over here, it's called methylated spirits. It's denatured alcohol. I'll bet they don't even know what denatured means. -- Ray > Denaturing is done to rubbing alcohol. You're confused. As usual. Both Isopropal and Ethyl alcohols are generically called "rubbing alcohols", but only the Ethyl variations are ever "denatured". That's because "denaturing" means adding something that makes the normally palatable Ethyl alcohol toxic to prevent it being used as a beverage, whereas Isopropal alcohol is toxic to begin with, so cannot be "denatured". > What these yokels are doing is > confusing 90% alcohol with 70% alcohol. No, those are just variations of how much water there is in a given mixture. > Over here, it's called methylated spirits. It's denatured alcohol. > > I'll bet they don't even know what denatured means. Bets? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol (You can apologise any time now, but we won't hold our collective breaths.) ~Pete >> Denaturing is done to rubbing alcohol. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >~Pete Why? You just proved I was correct. Your attempt at apology is noted but declined, Pete. -- Ray > Why? You just proved I was correct. Your attempt at apology is noted > but declined, Pete. Ray, you are in a minority of one (as usual). Everyone else, rest assured that other Australians do not have the same misconceptions, even though the term rubbing alcohol is not in very common use here. >> Why? You just proved I was correct. Your attempt at apology is noted >> but declined, Pete. > >Ray, you are in a minority of one (as usual). Everyone else, rest >assured that other Australians do not have the same misconceptions, even >though the term rubbing alcohol is not in very common use here. They are still both denatured whether I am the only one who knows it or not. -- Ray On 8/19/2009 11:31 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: >>> Why? You just proved I was correct. Your attempt at apology is noted >>> but declined, Pete. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They are still both denatured whether I am the only one who knows it > or not. So tell us how, exactly, isopropyl alcohol (known in North America as rubbing alcohol) is denatured. Keep in mind that this word means that the substance was changed in some way from its "natural" state (e.g., adding methanol to ethyl alcohol to make denatured alcohol). We're waiting. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >> They are still both denatured whether I am the only one who knows it >> or not. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > We're waiting. Isocol, as referred to elsewhere as the commonest Australian analogue of your rubbing alcohol, is 'denatured' in Ray's sense by being only 64% isopropyl and therefore 36% something else; whatever that something else may be, the stuff is not pure isopropyl, and is therefore denatured in a legitimate Australian-usage sense of that word. Denatured here, in this usage, simply means artificially rendered impure, or as one dictionary defines it, 'adulterated'. Ray is right in respect in respect of common, although not the only, Australian usage. On 8/19/2009 11:50 PM a_a_a spake thus: >> [Ray Haddad said:] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > may be, the stuff is not pure isopropyl, and is therefore denatured in a > legitimate Australian-usage sense of that word. You're right about it being x% something else besides isopropyl; however, that "something else" is probably water. (Couldn't check the MSDS on that site because it goes to the same link as "contact us".) But that's what our rubbing alcohol is: isopropyl + water. But I think you're just wrong about the denatured part of it. Since isopropyl alcohol is already toxic and not something people would drink to get drunk, there's no *need* to denature it as there is with ethanol, so I don't see what you're getting at here. > Denatured here, in this usage, simply means artificially rendered > impure, or as one dictionary defines it, 'adulterated'. But it's not being rendered anything; it's simply diluted (again, probably with water). Which ain't the same thing as denaturing. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >> Isocol, as referred to elsewhere as the commonest Australian analogue >> of your rubbing alcohol, is 'denatured' in Ray's sense by being only [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to get drunk, there's no *need* to denature it as there is with ethanol, > so I don't see what you're getting at here. That is not the point. To us it is denatured by the act of modifying it irrespective of the motivation or means for doing so. That is where you and twibil are both missing the difference between the US usage and Ray's Australian usage - you are saying that in your definition, the motivation and nature of the modification are a key factor in whether it is denatured, whereas to him (and me) those aspects are irrelevant. Your very specific form of denaturing is just a small subset of our much more general concept of denaturing. >> Denatured here, in this usage, simply means artificially rendered >> impure, or as one dictionary defines it, 'adulterated'. > > But it's not being rendered anything; it's simply diluted (again, > probably with water). Which ain't the same thing as denaturing. Again, the definitions are different. To us dilution IS a form of denaturing, as might more readily be apparent if we were discussing wine rather than isopropyl alcohol. Watered-down wine is highly denatured in several ways! >>> They are still both denatured whether I am the only one who knows it >>> or not. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Ray is right in respect in respect of common, although not the only, >Australian usage. I'm not Australian. Get over it. Denaturing is denaturing. -- Ray >On 8/19/2009 11:31 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >We're waiting. Denaturing is the same worldwide. Quit dodging. You are wrong. -- Ray > Denaturing is the same worldwide. Quit dodging. You are wrong. No, Ray. To some people it has a very narrow meaning; to others, it has a very broad meaning. They are no more or less wrong than you are. >> Denaturing is the same worldwide. Quit dodging. You are wrong. > >No, Ray. To some people it has a very narrow meaning; to others, it has >a very broad meaning. They are no more or less wrong than you are. Denaturing is denaturing. End of story. -- Ray > Denaturing is denaturing. End of story. There's a joke about Alzheimer's: you only need one book. Ray evidently has only one rebuttal, a semantic twitch that chundered up from the depths of Western Oz. SignatureSteve On 8/20/2009 10:58 AM Steve Caple spake thus: >> Denaturing is denaturing. End of story. > > There's a joke about Alzheimer's: you only need one book. Ray evidently > has only one rebuttal, a semantic twitch that chundered up from the depths > of Western Oz. So for him, it *is* true, and becomes truer by repeating the assertion. Interesting. By the way, it seems Ray recently disavowed being an Aussie, even though he lives there, so he must be a man with no country. How sad for him. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >On 8/20/2009 10:58 AM Steve Caple spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >By the way, it seems Ray recently disavowed being an Aussie, even though >he lives there, so he must be a man with no country. How sad for him. Oh, the irony of it all. You continue to repeat your denial of a fact and then use that on me. What a joke you have become. And then to stoop into a nationality issue as if that wins the discussion. Not only are you a joke, but you are a dope. Good one, David. You keep up with that. -- Ray >> Denaturing is denaturing. End of story. > >There's a joke about Alzheimer's: you only need one book. Ray evidently >has only one rebuttal, a semantic twitch that chundered up from the depths >of Western Oz. A fact is a fact. You want a different rebuttal? Change the subject. You can't win this one, Steve, but nice try. -- Ray >>> Denaturing is the same worldwide. Quit dodging. You are wrong. >> >>No, Ray. To some people it has a very narrow meaning; to others, it has >>a very broad meaning. They are no more or less wrong than you are. > > Denaturing is denaturing. End of story. You are wrong. SignatureGroet, salut, Wim. >>>> Denaturing is the same worldwide. Quit dodging. You are wrong. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You are wrong. LOL English not your first language then? -- Ray > On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:40:22 -0700, David Nebenzahl [...] >> So tell us how, exactly, isopropyl alcohol (known in North America as >> rubbing alcohol) is denatured. Keep in mind that this word means that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Ray No, it ain't. That's the problem. What is it with you guys that you can't accept that words have different meanings in different parts of the English speaking world? So you use "denatured" to mean "other than its pure state". So what does that prove? It certainly doesn;t prove that "both are denatured." It only proves that Ozzies would call both denatured. Which is OK by me, if that's the way you want it. But if you want to be understood by people who use the words differently, you have to explain what you mean. BTW a_a_a, all commercially available wine is denatured by your Ozzie definition. It's all mixed with water to bring it to some standard percentage of ethanol, as decided by the vintner. That's because of trade laws that require labelling of alcohol (ethanol) content, and regulations that allow little variation from what's stated on the label. I don't know about your legalities, but here tax on alcoholic beverages is tied to the alcohol content. cheers, wolf k. >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:40:22 -0700, David Nebenzahl >[...] [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >cheers, >wolf k. Wolf, I got my education in the USA and denaturing is denaturing. Why can't you accept that? The words are even spelled alike. See that? DENATURING = DENATURING worldwide. -- Ray > They are still both denatured whether I am the only one who knows it > or not. Thanks for that, Ray. It's right up there with your "My posts are always nice" comment from a few weeks ago. > >(You can apologise any time now, but we won't hold our collective > >breaths.) > > Why? You just proved I was correct. No, I didn't, and no, you weren't. You had Isopropal and Ethyl confused, apparently not knowing that *both* can be referred to as "rubbing alcohol". So when David quite correctly advised using denatured instead of common rubbing alcohol for cleaning wheels, you replied "they are the same". They aren't. "Denatured" can *only* refer to Ethyl, as Isopropal is never denatured, so David's reply was correct and your feeble attempt at correcting something that was already correct to begin with was not only wrong but made you look the fool. > Your attempt at apology is noted > but declined, Pete. Right. I've said it before and I'll say it again: arrogance and stupidity make a poor combination. P.S.: Had to pick up some meds today, so I made a point of checking the shelves in the pharmacy. As you'd expect, they carry both denatured (ethyl) and isopropal alcohols, but only the isopropal is labeled "rubbing alcohol": the ethyl alcohol was all clearly labeled "Denatured (Ethyl) Alcohol", with nothing about rubbing alcohol on the label at all. When I queried the pharmacist as to why this was, he said "They can both be used for rubbing alcohols, but if you label them the same it's too easy for people to confuse them". Would you care to try telling us that the pharmacist was wrong and that only Ray Haddad is right? Sheesh. > "Denatured" can *only* refer to Ethyl, as Isopropal is never > denatured, No, twibil, this is the one aspect in which Ray is arguably correct in respect of outside the USA. For instance the commonest form of isopropyl in Australia is stuff called Isocol which is only 64% isopropyl. They even advertise it for cleaning track http://www.isocol.com.au/general.htm Given that he was 99% astray, give Ray the 1% credit he deserves. > > "Denatured" can *only* refer to Ethyl, as Isopropal is never > > denatured, > > No, twibil, this is the one aspect in which Ray is arguably correct in > respect of outside the USA. I'm not trying to be impolite, but attend closely: (A) The word "denatured" in this context means "rendered unfit to drink". Here's the online definition from Webster's: "de·na·ture (d-nchr) tr.v. de·na·tured, de·na·tur·ing, de·na·tures 1. To change the nature or natural qualities of. 2. To render unfit to eat or drink without destroying usefulness in other applications, especially to add methanol to (ethyl alcohol)." (B) Isopropal alcohol is unfit to drink by it's very nature: it's poisonous before you add anything else to it. Therefore you cannot "denature" it. (You can certainly mix other things into isopropal alcohol, and that's done all the time, but doing so does not "denature" it.) > For instance the commonest form of isopropyl > in Australia is stuff called Isocol which is only 64% isopropyl. (C) As mentioned above, diluting isopropal alcohol is the rule rather than the exception; but just mixing isopropal with other things does not mean that you're "denaturing" it by doing so. > They even advertise it for cleaning trackhttp://www.isocol.com.au/general.htm Alas, the ad fails to tell us what the other 36% of the stuff consists of, so its no help. > Given that he was 99% astray, give Ray the 1% credit he deserves. Had he deserved it, I would have. He didn't. ~Pete On 8/19/2009 8:45 PM Twibil spake thus: > (B) Isopropal alcohol is unfit to drink [...] Isopropyl. Continue. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 8/19/2009 8:45 PM Twibil spake thus: > >> (B) Isopropal alcohol is unfit to drink [...] > > Isopropyl. But David, twibil is even more perfect than Ray, so how can he err? > > On 8/19/2009 8:45 PM Twibil spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But David, twibil is even more perfect than Ray, so how can he err? Shrug. Now you're just trying to be a prick. And succeeding. >>> "Denatured" can *only* refer to Ethyl, as Isopropal is never >>> denatured, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 2. To render unfit to eat or drink without destroying usefulness in > other applications, especially to add methanol to (ethyl alcohol)." You are quoting an American dictionary. Others do not have the same definition, eg definition 2 above does not even get a mention in the Concise Oxford in front of me now. Are you saying that Ray is only allowed to use an American dictionary? And are you saying that he is only allowed to use definition 2 above because it suits your argument, when he can equally well use definition 1 to suit his argument? Or are you saying that because the discussion started in an American context, Ray must keep it there for evermore? On 8/19/2009 9:20 PM a_a_a spake thus: >> (A) The word "denatured" in this context means "rendered unfit to >> drink". Here's the online definition from Webster's: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > definition, eg definition 2 above does not even get a mention in the > Concise Oxford in front of me now. So, assuming you're in the UK, what is the meaning of the term "denatured" there? What is isopropyl alcohol called, vs. the other stuff (I believe y'all call that stuff "methylated spirits", yes?). SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >>>> "Denatured" can *only* refer to Ethyl, as Isopropal is never >>>> denatured, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to use definition 2 above because it suits your argument, when he can > equally well use definition 1 to suit his argument? One supposes that Ray would have brought this up himself, were he remotely aware of it. ;) > Or are you saying that because the discussion started in an American > context, Ray must keep it there for evermore? > You are quoting an American dictionary. I am quoting a dictionary of the English language, and we are both using that same language right now. Other than the occasional quaint term such as "tossing a wowser", the meanings of most words are identical in both the US and Oz. Were it otherwise, you would not feel insulted when I state that you're a throughgoing bonehead. > Others do not have the same > definition, eg definition 2 above does not even get a mention in the > Concise Oxford in front of me now. And you are very carefully failing to quote what it *does* say about the word "denatured"; if anything. > Are you saying that Ray is only > allowed to use an American dictionary? Let's see: the OP is presumably from the US, David answered his question correctly using US terminology (assuming there *is* any difference in terminology, which you have yet to demonstrate), and you think starting an argument about possible overseas definitions has any relevance to *anything*!? If you're going to answer a question from the US in terms that aren't used in the US, all you're doing is muddying the water; not proving how cool you are, or even providing useful information. > And are you saying that he is > only allowed to use definition 2 above because it suits your argument, > when he can equally well use definition 1 to suit his argument? Now that's just plain dumb. Definition #2 is the one that specifically applies to the denaturing of alcohol -it says so right there- and that's the subject at hand, so *of course* it's the one that applies. (The words "especially to add methanol to (ethyl alcohol)." should have been your clue.) > Or are you saying that because the discussion started in an American > context, Ray must keep it there for evermore? (A) You have still not demonstrated that the word "denatured" applies to the treatment of Ethyl alcohol only in the US. (Lack of evidence is not evidence.) (B) You only have to use the relevant definitions if you intend to provide relevant information. Heck, if you just want to demonstrate that trolls exist everywhere, you're perfectly free to post your answers in Swahili. But don't expect anyone to bother with translating. >> > "Denatured" can *only* refer to Ethyl, as Isopropal is never >> > denatured, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >~Pete They are both denatured. -- Ray >> >(You can apologise any time now, but we won't hold our collective >> >breaths.) [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Sheesh. They are both denatured. Keep trying. They'll still both be denatured. -- Ray >> Denatured alcohol works really well. Don't use rubbing alcohol. > > They are one and the same. > -- > Ray Erm, "denatured alcohol" usually refers to methanol with an odorous addition, sold in a hardware or builder's supply store, while rubbing alcohol is isopropanol, sold in a drugstore. Cheers, wolf k. >>> Denatured alcohol works really well. Don't use rubbing alcohol. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >addition, sold in a hardware or builder's supply store, while rubbing >alcohol is isopropanol, sold in a drugstore. Both are denatured. -- Ray > Both are denatured. Boy, yer uh askin' to be denatured yusseff, you igerunt slut. Isopropyl alcohol is not at all the same thing as ethyl alcohol. But perhaps the methyl alcohol in that Western Oz Wino Juice you've obviously been quaffing to excess has led you to be unsure of the difference. Better get yourself some nice Kiwi Sauvignon Blanc and wash out the toxins. SignatureSteve >> Both are denatured. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >been quaffing to excess has led you to be unsure of the difference. Better >get yourself some nice Kiwi Sauvignon Blanc and wash out the toxins. Both are denatured. End of story. -- Ray > Both are denatured. End of story. Wrong. Again. (And again, and again, and again, and.....) http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00102.htm "Question - what is the difference between denatured alcohol and rubbing alcohol? ------------------------------------------------ Denatured alcohol is ethanol to which poisonous and foul-tasting chamicals have been added to make it unfit for drinking. There is more than one recipe for denaturing alcohol; some add methanol or isopropanol, some gasoline, and so on. Rubbing alcohol is an alcohol intended to be rubbed on the skin. Frequently 70% iso-propyl alcohol / 30% water is used; sometimes ethanol with added iso-propyl alcohol is used. You don't want to use denatured alcohol that is made with anything that shouldn't be placed on the skin, such as gasoline! So, some, but not all, kinds of denatured alcohol can be used as rubbing alcohol. Rubbing alcohol may also not contain any ethanol at all, which would disqualify it from being "denatured". So, some but not all kinds of rubbing alcohol are denatured alcohol, and some but not all kinds of denatured alcohol can be rubbing alcohol. Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D. Assistant Director PG Research Foundation, Darien, Illinois" --------------------------------------------------------------------- What a great fool you are, Ray. >> Both are denatured. End of story. > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >What a great fool you are, Ray. They are both denatured. -- Ray [...] > They are both denatured. > -- > Ray I have no idea of what you mean by "denatured." But it is amusing to see you repeat yourself. Reminds me of the Monty Python argument sketch. Except that the Monty Python sketchis actually witty. cheers, wolf k. >[...] >> They are both denatured. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >cheers, >wolf k. As opposed to your reply. Both types of alcohol under discussion are denatured. End of story. Repetition may be necessary for the blockheads who believe they can nuance their way into being right. -- Ray >>>> Denatured alcohol works really well. Don't use rubbing alcohol. >>> They are one and the same. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Ray Oh, I see what you mean. Well, over here we use "denatured" for what you call "methylated spirits", and "rubbing alcohol" for both 70% and 90% isopropanol. Now don't you go and do Greg Procter and claim we are misusing the language. We know perfectly well what we mean by those terms, so we don't get the wrong stuff by mistake, and that's what matters. cheers, wolf k. On 8/19/2009 10:13 AM Wolf K spake thus: >>>>> Denatured alcohol works really well. Don't use rubbing alcohol. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > call "methylated spirits", and "rubbing alcohol" for both 70% and 90% > isopropanol. At the risk of flogging an already-dead horse, denatured alcohol is so called because it is "natural" alcohol (i.e., ethanol) that's been rendered undrinkable by the addition of poison (methanol). The idea, apparently, is to discourage people from making bloody Marys and margaritas from it. Rubbing alcohol is not called denatured because isopropyl alcohol is not drinkable as ethanol is. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >On 8/19/2009 10:13 AM Wolf K spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >margaritas from it. Rubbing alcohol is not called denatured because >isopropyl alcohol is not drinkable as ethanol is. And thus you prove me correct. But you will never admit it. -- Ray > On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:40:01 -0700, David Nebenzahl [...] >> At the risk of flogging an already-dead horse, denatured alcohol is so >> called because it is "natural" alcohol (i.e., ethanol) that's been [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Ray I don't follow your logic, Ray. DN has just pointed out that we use the term "denatured" to refer to ethanol with methanol added. Rubbing alcohol doesn't have methanol added, leastways not here. Just water, for the 70% stuff. So it's not denatured. Do you use "denatured" to mean the stuff is undrinkable? Or do you Ozzies add methanol to isopropanol? Or what? Just asking wolf k. >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:40:01 -0700, David Nebenzahl >[...] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Just asking >wolf k. And all I am saying is that both are denatured. Simple. Any attempt to add other arguments is just proving me more and more correct. His argument has changed. Both have been denatured yet he now makes allowances that they are denatured differently. It's not "CALLED" denatured, is his new argument. But, the fact remains that they are both denatured and always have been. -- Ray On 8/19/2009 11:35 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > And all I am saying is that both are denatured. Simple. Any attempt to > add other arguments is just proving me more and more correct. The only argumentation technique you're using now is repetition. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any truer. Sheesh, Ray, you're sinking to new lows with each new post. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >On 8/19/2009 11:35 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any truer. Sheesh, >Ray, you're sinking to new lows with each new post. So I should do like you? Change the argument just to win a point? Shameful, mate. Denaturing is denaturing. End of story. Go play with your trains. -- Ray >>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:40:01 -0700, David Nebenzahl >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > And all I am saying is that both are denatured. Ray, what the hell do you mean by "denatured"? I don't give a s**t what various dictionaries say - I want to know what _you_ mean by it. Just repeating "they are both denatured" is stoopid. Really. You must have some common factor or process in mind. What do you know, or believe you know, that makes your claim valid? [...] wolf k. On 8/20/2009 7:15 PM Wolf K spake thus: >>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:40:01 -0700, David Nebenzahl >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > some common factor or process in mind. What do you know, or believe you > know, that makes your claim valid? Lordy, look at what has happened. I don't think I've *ever* seen the polite, accommodating and normally unflappable Wolf Kirchmeier actually get pissed at someone. Never. Leave it to Ray to be the one. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >Ray, what the hell do you mean by "denatured"? I don't give a s**t what >various dictionaries say - I want to know what _you_ mean by it. Just >repeating "they are both denatured" is stoopid. Really. You must have >some common factor or process in mind. What do you know, or believe you >know, that makes your claim valid? If you don't know what denatured alcohol is then you belong in another thread. Over there ====> -- Ray >> Ray, what the hell do you mean by "denatured"? I don't give a s**t what >> various dictionaries say - I want to know what _you_ mean by it. Just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Ray Ah, forget it. If you want to insist that a technical definition is the only correct one, go ahead. Real people use words in all kinds of ways. Know your audience and adapt your language to them. Oh, I forgot - you can't adapt. wolf k. >Ah, forget it. If you want to insist that a technical definition is the >only correct one, go ahead. Real people use words in all kinds of ways. >Know your audience and adapt your language to them. Wolf, why should I redefine a word simply because others do? It's not necessary except to them. Thus, THEY moved the goalposts here. Not me. >Oh, I forgot - you can't adapt. There's no need when the word is clearly defined and I used it as it was intended rather than changing it to win an argument. Which is why I simply stand fast instead of being led around by the ignorati. Somebody said you were uncharacteristically riled up over this. Is that so or is this a genuine civil discussion? -- Ray >>Ah, forget it. If you want to insist that a technical definition is the >>only correct one, go ahead. Real people use words in all kinds of ways. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There's no need when the word is clearly defined and I used it as it > was intended rather than changing it to win an argument. As nature intended? >>>Ah, forget it. If you want to insist that a technical definition is the >>>only correct one, go ahead. Real people use words in all kinds of ways. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >As nature intended? Is that the Depends(tm) brand? LOL -- Ray >> Ah, forget it. If you want to insist that a technical definition is the >> only correct one, go ahead. Real people use words in all kinds of ways. >> Know your audience and adapt your language to them. > > Wolf, why should I redefine a word simply because others do? It's not > necessary except to them. Thus, THEY moved the goalposts here. Not me. Because very few words have only one meaning. A good writer/reader recognises this, and adapts his writing/reading accordingly. >> Oh, I forgot - you can't adapt. > > There's no need when the word is clearly defined and I used it as it > was intended rather than changing it to win an argument. Which is why > I simply stand fast instead of being led around by the ignorati. A word may be clearly defined by some group of technical users, but outside that group it will be used for other meanings. Which is exactly what happened in this case. You didn't or wouldn't realise that, and assumed people were using the word as you understood it (even though it's clear that even among the experts it has at least two meanings. I checked.) When people explained what they meant by the word, you accused them of misusing it and/or changing its meaning. You just have trouble accepting that words have multiple meanings. I don't know why. > Somebody said you were uncharacteristically riled up over this. Is > that so or is this a genuine civil discussion? > -- > Ray I'm not as riled up as I was, but I am impatient with your unwillingness to accept that this was not an argument about what some things were, but about what words were used to describe those things. IOW, a semantic one. Trouble is, you can't win a semantic argument. The best you can do is explain, as carefully as you can, just what meanings you ascribe to words, and which of those meanings you intended. There are _no_ "correct" meanings of words, and I mean _none_. There are only meanings understood within specific contexts. And even within specific contexts, a word may have several meanings, eg "gauge" in engineering has at least four different meanings. And keep in mind that over time, people use words for more and different meanings than the original ones. That's what's happened to "denatured", and it happened for the most obvious of reasons: as soon as you sell the stuff, you have to differentiate between the several varieties of denatured alcohol, or else people won't get what they want. The non-technical meaning has overwhelmed the technical one (which is a common fate of technical termns, BTW). So it shouldn't surprise you that your use of its technical meaning caused confusion. You insistence that you were using the word correctly, and everyone else was wrong or stupid, of course caused irritation and annoyance. You can't tell people they're stupid for using a word in well-understood sense and expect them to love you. cheers, wolf k. >Trouble is, you can't win a semantic argument. The best you can do is >explain, as carefully as you can, just what meanings you ascribe to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a word may have several meanings, eg "gauge" in engineering has at least >four different meanings. When someone says "that's not what the word means" when the context is clear, or when you have explained the sense it is being used, they are arguing for the sake of it and have already lost. Because it means they understand what you are trying to communicate. At which point it is unclear why they are arguing. Many controversial newsgroups including leading edge scientific ones which shouldn't be, see too much of this. >>Trouble is, you can't win a semantic argument. The best you can do is >>explain, as carefully as you can, just what meanings you ascribe to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Many controversial newsgroups including leading edge scientific ones >which shouldn't be, see too much of this. It's a means of attempting to manipulate an outcome. The words denaturing or denatured have clear meaning to most people. -- Ray >And keep in mind that over time, people use words for more and different >meanings than the original ones. That's what's happened to "denatured", >and it happened for the most obvious of reasons: as soon as you sell the >stuff, you have to differentiate between the several varieties of >denatured alcohol, or else people won't get what they want. Wolf, the fact is that nearly all "off the shelf" alcohols are denatured by law. At one time you had to have a prescription to buy the pure stuff. Any way that you look at it, denaturing has only one definition. Just because there is more than one way to denature alcohol is a spurious argument. It does nothing more than attempt to change the goalposts so my detractors can feel they've somehow won something. It's a game I don't play. Words do have meaning. We sort of agreed on that when we adopted the use of a dictionary. -- Ray >> And keep in mind that over time, people use words for more and different >> meanings than the original ones. That's what's happened to "denatured", [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wolf, the fact is that nearly all "off the shelf" alcohols are > denatured by law. True, in the technical sense. But that's not how most people understand and use the word. > At one time you had to have a prescription to buy > the pure stuff. Any way that you look at it, denaturing has only one > definition. No, it doesn't. That's what you can't get through your head. The "definition" of a word is simply what people mean by it. That's all. > Just because there is more than one way to denature > alcohol is a spurious argument. You miss the point. For most people it's irrelevant - all they care about is getting the stuff they paid for. So they use a technical term in a non-technical sense - happens all the time. So what? > It does nothing more than attempt to > change the goalposts so my detractors can feel they've somehow won > something. It's a game I don't play. Words do have meaning. We sort of > agreed on that when we adopted the use of a dictionary. > -- > Ray You are too focussed on winning an argument, instead of clarifying what's being said. You're quite right that "denature" as a generic technical term refers any one of a variety of ways of making ethanol and other alcohols etc unpalatable, noxious, noisome, disgusting odoriferous, ... take your pick. But by the second or third post it was clear that people were using the term to refer to ethanol + methanol (+ other things, depending). Yet you persisted in claiming that "denatured alcohol" could/should not refer only to this one type of denatured alcohol. Which is a nonsensical claim, since people not only could, but did, so use it. Without confusion, I might add. HTH wolf k. >But by the second or third post it was clear that people were using the >term to refer to ethanol + methanol (+ other things, depending). And they were incorrect but desperately trying to win a point. Their argument was irrelevant. -- Ray >> But by the second or third post it was clear that people were using the >> term to refer to ethanol + methanol (+ other things, depending). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Ray No, they were not incorrect. That's the way the term is used by most people in everyday life, in some parts of the world, eg, when buying the stuff at a hardware store. Maybe not in your part of the world, but so what? And they weren't trying to win a point. They were explaining what they meant. That's what you can't (or won't) accept: Different people, different contexts, different countries, different situations -- all these affect how people use words. That is a fact of the way language works. Or, if you prefer, of the way people use language. Live with it. Or expect repeated run-ins with people who use words differently than you do. Most of those people are not as patient as I am. Now I intend to sip a single malt while watching Inspector Lewis solve a dastardly crime. G'night. wolf k. >>> But by the second or third post it was clear that people were using the >>> term to refer to ethanol + methanol (+ other things, depending). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >people in everyday life, in some parts of the world, eg, when buying the >stuff at a hardware store. Maybe not in your part of the world, but so what? I've lived all but the last 10 years in America. Denatured alcohol does not have two meanings. End of story. Now go ahead and get cross with me if you wish. -- Ray On 8/19/2009 6:49 AM Wolf K spake thus: >>> Denatured alcohol works really well. Don't use rubbing alcohol. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > addition, sold in a hardware or builder's supply store, while rubbing > alcohol is isopropanol, sold in a drugstore. Well, I'm going to be forgiving here and let Ray go on believing that denatured and rubbing alcohols are one and the same. After all, if he confuses the two and rubs some denatured alcohol on his skin, there's just a chance of an adverse reaction which might just shut him up, at least for a little while: POISON! DANGER! VAPOR HARMFUL. MAY BE FATAL OR CAUSE BLINDNESS IF SWALLOWED. HARMFUL IF INHALED OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. CANNOT BE MADE NONPOISONOUS. FLAMMABLE LIQUID AND VAPOR. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. AFFECTS CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AND LIVER. (from the MSDS for methyl alcohol, http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/M2015.htm) SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism On 8/17/2009 12:41 PM W. eWatson spake thus: > A part of the diagram show the motor, fly wheels, and so on. Starting > on the left, I would think I should put a small drop of oil on the > worm bearing, worm & shaft, coupling?, and worm gear at the right > end. Forgot to say, for the truck assemblies, a little grease would be a better lubricant than oil. Any grease is fine (I use a general-purpose white lithium grease). Again, just a little goes a long way. A toothpick is your friend here. The truck assemblies are very easy to open up: they just snap apart and snap back together, using the plastic retaining clips. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2012 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.