Anyone got any spare Uranium.?

[beast66606]

Just a question... Eileens Emporium Fluid Lead....is it really Lead.?????????? And would it be better than the pseudo lead in the fishing weights I'm using.

Bob.

 

Eileens stuff is (used to be) very fine and is a lot easier to get into those awkward spaces, watch using PVA to glue it - a chemical reaction can ensue which causes expansion and damage to the model. Not sure if its real lead though - it was when I last bought some.

[RedgateModels]

Bob, if you can wait until the Member's Day I can bring you some sheet lead along

 

I know a roofer ......

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The safest way is to seal the shot in place with an epoxy adhesive, and only to skin over the top of it, not soak it through.

Not soaking through is important, the mobile species in epoxy formulations can soften the polystrene of RTR bodies. I once araldited a lump of lead inside an old Hornby A3 boiler and it 'pulled down' the boiler top slightly in the week following.

 

My choice is evo-stick. Easy to remove the lead if the model is to be sold or altered in any way.

[70022Tornado]

Damn the CIA, What if Mossad are watching ?

 

I can see the headlines now "Israeli swoop on RM forum !!"

 

70022

[Jenny Emily]

IIRC from University days:

 

Uranium - or at least the most common isotope of U235 - isn't all that harmful. I seem to recall that it is primarily an alpha emiter, which means that unless you eat it or inhale the dust of it, it poses no real health risks. The isotope that gets used in nuclear reactors - U238 - wouldn't be so clever. It is also fair to say that putting too much U238 in close proximity makes for an interesting and short lived experience of seeing your shadow perminantly projected on the wall behind. Getting it would be the hard part.... I also have a feeling that even if you could find some-one to sell you some, the price would be rather high.

 

Heavier elements do exist, but I seem to recall that U235 is the heaviest element that occurs naturally and isn't lethal to humans. Plutonium, for example, is another couple of places up the periodic table, but is toxic to humans in concentrations above something like 2ppm.

 

It is also fair to say that writing on the internet too much and too frequently on the subject of acquiring Uranium will lead to a pleasent chat with men in sharp suits from special branch, the CIA and Interpol.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

'Tother way round, U238 is the common isotope, U235 the exciting but much rarer fissile stuff. Both decay by alpha emission, and I certainly wouldn't want to ingest any, both because of radiation exposure, and the known kidney damage as a chemical toxin. That's what I remember from Irving Sax' 'Horrible, nasty and dangerous properties of industrial materials' about forty years ago when I had to work with the stuff.

 

 

[Edwin_m]

Why not just procure a small black hole? Guaranteed the loco would never again have a problem with the gradient, because neither would exist. I must have one in my garage somewhere, as things keep vanishing.

[ozzyo]

Try using the tender ál la Stewart Reidpath or Mike Sharman, where the front, and middle wheels of the tender are effectively not supporting the weight of the tender, either by using vertically slotted bearings, or turning the front axles into a bogie, and then supporting the weight via a bar coupling to a mid point under the chassis.

The bar can be flat brass strip with fine code rail soldered to it to make a strong T section.

 

 

Nothing difficult to make, and with a tender packed with lead it should add lots to the adhesion weight on the drivers.

 

Stephen.

 

 

Hello Stephen,

 

have another look at it. lots of weight above the front of the tender wheels I'll take traction off the drivers. But if the transfer beam were to be above the driving axle centers it would work. But it will only work where the fulcrum is. On your Diag. the force would tend to lift the drives.

 

OzzyO.

[bertiedog]

Hello Stephen,

 

have another look at it. lots of weight above the front of the tender wheels I'll take traction off the drivers. But if the transfer beam were to be above the driving axle centers it would work. But it will only work where the fulcrum is. On your Diag. the force would tend to lift the drives.

 

OzzyO.

 

Sorry but you are entirely wrong, the drawing shows the arm transferring the weight to the centre axle in a down direction.

 

The tenders weight is pivoted on the rear axle, all the weight ahead of the pivot is loaded on to the beam and the beam is attached to a point under the axle, the system is very carefully worked out, and I have used this type for over forty years on dozens of models.

 

The attachment point above or below the axle makes no difference at all. it is just more practical to run it under the loco, have another look at the drawing again, I think you have not noticed the tender is on the right hand end.

 

Stephen.

[Baby Deltic]

'Tother way round, U238 is the common isotope, U235 the exciting but much rarer fissile stuff. Both decay by alpha emission, and I certainly wouldn't want to ingest any, both because of radiation exposure, and the known kidney damage as a chemical toxin. That's what I remember from Irving Sax' 'Horrible, nasty and dangerous properties of industrial materials' about forty years ago when I had to work with the stuff.

 

 

 

Yep. Luckily U235 has a fairly short half life compared to U238, (I think its about 24,000 years) so there's not a great deal of this isotope around for people to build bombs, unless you can afford to spend billions separating it from U238. Of course, you also need the correct geometry of critical mass, plus a neutron emitter to set off the chain reaction.

[Il Grifone]

It isn't essential to have the tender weight transfered to the centre axle. Anywhere within the coupled wheelbase will do and, if the loco is nose heavy (smokebox full of lead), even behind the rear axle. The weight ideally should be equal on all three axles, but this is not essential. (We don't have axle loading constraints!)

 

Have you tried Bullfrog Snot? This is a sort of greenish goo which forms a traction tyre on the driver. The downside is that it's an insulator, so additional pickups would be required.

OK it's heresy, so I'll get my coat.

[bertiedog]

The transfer beam at it's most extreme was on a K's Q1 060, with a tender drive using a motor that filled the tender, the beam was hollow square tube and contained the shaft drive to the middle axle which had an under slung worm drive of 15 :1. The tender had 3:1 gearing to drop the drive to the drawbar level.

 

 

The entire inside of the Q1 Loco was solid lead, with a lead filled brass chassis, and any spare space in the tender filled as well..... the loco was unstoppable under power, it would shift anything, and the mass helped silence it as well. Never found any track long enough to stall it, it took 30 coaches on one test.......

 

Stephen.

[ozzyo]

Sorry but you are entirely wrong, the drawing shows the arm transferring the weight to the centre axle in a down direction.

 

The tenders weight is pivoted on the rear axle, all the weight ahead of the pivot is loaded on to the beam and the beam is attached to a point under the axle, the system is very carefully worked out, and I have used this type for over forty years on dozens of models.

 

The attachment point above or below the axle makes no difference at all. it is just more practical to run it under the loco, have another look at the drawing again, I think you have not noticed the tender is on the right hand end.

 

Stephen.

 

 

Where is your fulcrum that will force the down ward force on to the center axle. If all the weight is over the front of the tender how do you force the center axle down with out lifting the front or rear axle up.

You show the C/L pivot outside of the Loco frames (or out side of the loco wheel base).

 

OzzyO.

[bertiedog]

It can't be put any other way, the basic physics is there, the pivots are not as you assume, they are correct as I have outlined.

 

The attachment to the loco transfers a down force to all the wheels of the loco, especially true if sprung, but even unsprung there is a weight transfer from the tender to the loco, the weight of the tender in front of the rear axle is hanging on the loco..........What other way can it be put? There is no pivot in the system to lever the loco upwards this would defy physics, and gravity too.......Drawn with front tender wheels removed, does this not make it clear?

[James]

if you do make sure you leave room for expansion - many people report boilers popping when filled with liquid lead

 

Can be a problem - I think it's due to a reaction between lead and PVA -

 

http://eastmoor.blogspot.com/2010/04/ever-expanding-pva.html

[bertiedog]

Can be a problem - I think it's due to a reaction between lead and PVA -

 

http://eastmoor.blog...anding-pva.html

The PVA causes the lead to turn to lead oxide, which occupies more space than lead alone, not all PVA does it, it varies with makers.

Stephen.

[James]

The PVA causes the lead to turn to lead oxide, which occupies more space than lead alone, not all PVA does it, it varies with makers.

 

That would explain it! You can tell I'm an engineer and not a chemist!

 

Can't remember whose PVA I used but I suspect it is exactly this reaction which was highlighted in MRJ at various times. I cringe whenever I see recommendations for PVA and liquid lead now!

[benachie]

Bertiedog,

It has always seemed to me in theory and in practice that the problem with the tender weight transfer system is that the tender bounces around when the rigid rear axle passes over crossing gaps and such. Of course this is also true with all three-point "compensation" systems which is why I don't go near such things.

Alan

[bertiedog]

They simply do not really bounce around, the tender weight being high checks any nasty effects, and the rear axle can be centre pivoted to even the movement as long as it is sprung to centralise it.

 

Just springing the axle boxes may be difficult as both must be identical, less so with the central pivot. It is like a W iron compensation system, the tender body rotates forward and aft to transfer the weight, and the axle rides on the central point on a cross pivot.

 

It also raises the point of how bad the track would have to be to show any effect as any other unsprung loco would pitch at exactly the same rate and amount, but the weight transfer one would actually be more stable, not in anyway less.

 

It simply cannot make any crossing drop any worse, and that should be minimal with well set wheels and matching track.

 

The key is the design of the beam attachments is that they should be as large as possible in surface area, to stop any rocking, but allow free pivoting, I usually aim for 1cm diameter, a washer shape, with the retaining screw having a small steel coil spring under the capping washer. The springs are just powerful enough to stop any sudden rocking or drop effects, and all the legions of locos I have made with the system work 100%, they glide across points.

 

I think what happens is that people half apply the idea and it gets a bit lost in translation, it still needs the usual mechanics attitude to appreciate the finer points.

• The beam must not bend.
• The pivot bearings must be large to prevent rocking side to side.
• The pivot points must hold the beam to prevent any unwanted side to side rotation, (the springs do this).
• The shape and course of the beam does not matter at all, it can follow the usual loco to tender bar position.
• If hollow tube, square or round it can take cable for power.
• It can also take a drive shaft from a tender mounted motor in such a set up.

It does not mean the loco and tender are permanently coupled either, just use telescoping square tube, and in the overlap add a drop pin to couple the two, the loco and the tender.

 

And the usual caveat, this is for scale locos, it will not work as well or fit so easily if set track curves are in use. It still works but the clearance are tight and the pivot under the middle axle might not be achievable. In this case the weight is transferred less efficiently to the drag beam via a shorter beam in the usual position, still works, but not as well, but can then manage set track curves.

 

Stephen.

[griffgriff]

I seem to remember that an old chemistry text book of mine had an appendices that listed the chemical elements against their fundamental properties - strangely this included their price on the open market - I remember finding out that there was a 'market' price for uranium quite worrying but I was instantly reassured when I realised how expensive it was I can't remember exactly how pricey but I remember it was exorbitant - so perhaps one of the other solutions might prove more economic

[Pete Harvey]

Just a question... Eileens Emporium Fluid Lead....is it really Lead.?????????? And would it be better than the pseudo lead in the fishing weights I'm using.

Bob.

 

Bob

 

It is very small lead balls not fishing lead its well worth having and buy a full Kilo as you will use loads of it.

 

Pete

[Simon G]

IIRC from University days:

 

Uranium - or at least the most common isotope of U235 - isn't all that harmful. I seem to recall that it is primarily an alpha emiter, which means that unless you eat it or inhale the dust of it, it poses no real health risks. The isotope that gets used in nuclear reactors - U238 - wouldn't be so clever. It is also fair to say that putting too much U238 in close proximity makes for an interesting and short lived experience of seeing your shadow perminantly projected on the wall behind. Getting it would be the hard part.... I also have a feeling that even if you could find some-one to sell you some, the price would be rather high.

 

Heavier elements do exist, but I seem to recall that U235 is the heaviest element that occurs naturally and isn't lethal to humans. Plutonium, for example, is another couple of places up the periodic table, but is toxic to humans in concentrations above something like 2ppm.

 

It is also fair to say that writing on the internet too much and too frequently on the subject of acquiring Uranium will lead to a pleasent chat with men in sharp suits from special branch, the CIA and Interpol.

Plutonium is heavier than Uranium, and will get you even more attention from men in flak jackets and with automatic guns instead of sharp suits!!

 

I notice that Redgate Models have a 'picture' of the missing Standard Class 2-8-2. According to the biography of Riddles by H C B Rogers, Riddles regretted not making the Clan class 4-6-2 into 4-8-0's instead, as this would have improved their adhesive weight for the Scottish lines.

[Il Grifone]

IIRC the critical mass of plutonium is about 4½ kg and U235 about 14kg*. so be careful! Despite 'Back to the Future' this much plutonium would be fatal. The stuff is toxic as well as radioactive. It also suffers from the expansion problem when it oxidises.

 

* Normal uranium (U235 + U238) is non fissile of course.

 

I assume by 'heavy', we are referring to atomic number/weight. This has no direct bearing on density which is what matters here.

[ozzyo]

Bob

 

It is very small lead balls not fishing lead its well worth having and buy a full Kilo as you will use loads of it.

 

Pete

 

 

If you have a gun shop near to you pop in or phone them and ask if they stock lead shot for refilling shot gun cartridges. If they do ask what sizes they stock, I use No.7 about 3/32" dia. if you ask for dust its about 1mm Dia. You will find that it will work out cheaper in the long run.

 

Bertiedog,

 

got it now I was thinking that there was a pivot that was out side of the loco chassis.

 

OzzyO.

[two tone green]

U235 is here 57.44N, 10.39E, sunk by own side.

 

U238 is here 49.45N, 16.07W, we got this one

 

Any help by any chance