What About The Bee

Hello ThreeLink Think of the diameters of the objects, and thence the consequent circumference. The main wheel at c has a small diameter, and consequently small circumference. There will be many revolutions of the main wheel to one revolution of the friction wheel at f, due to the ratio of diameters. It took me quite awhile to discover the secret. I was almost at the point of George Stephenson, discarding it as rubbish. Give it another go, it is amazing when understood! Bee

Detailing early LMR carriages and waggons continues. On the 28th of May, 1829, Ross Winans received a patent for "certain improvements in diminishing friction in wheeled carriages to be used on railroads". Winans not only was a nominal competitor at Rainhill, he sold 12 of his special carriages to the LMR. None other than Charles Blacker Vignoles¹ evaluated the Winans friction wheels, as they came to be known. In one controlled test, a Winans equipped waggon was loaded with 80½ CWT (9016 pounds or 4½ tons). The tractive effort to move the Winans waggon was 2½ pounds to the ton or 11¼ pounds total. Exactly a ratio of 1 part tractive effort to 800 parts load. A common railway wagon of the LMR was loaded with the same mass. The tractive effort to move the LMR waggon was 9¾ pounds to the ton or just under 46 pounds total. Approximately part in 196. The Winans waggons were at least 4 times more efficient than the LMR common railway waggon! Wow! In another controlled test, Novelty drew 68% more mass using Winans' waggons than Stephenson's improved waggons² As to the entry at the Rainhill Trials, Winans did enter a vehicle that he termed the Manumotive. The Manumotive was a vehicle driven by two men turning a windlass, another 6 men riding. It did move along at roughly walking speed. Of course, all of the steamed locomotives were faster and stronger. That wasn't the point. The point was a demonstration of his friction wheels, that is what attracted all the scientific interest. What was this magical potion? I will start with what it was not. It was not a materials combination. For those with even a passing knowledge, the coefficient of friction varies as a function of materials. For example, wrought iron on wrought iron has a different coefficient of friction than wrought iron on brass. This was well known at the time, with prominent engineers promoting their favorite combination. It was not lubricants, or unguents as they were named in the day. Most machines of the day were total loss lubrication. Oil dripped into the top of the bearing surfaces and ran out the bottom. Planet had this type of total loss lubrication, with wells just above the bearing seat Here is an image from the Winans patent specification to "diminish friction" The axle is at b, with the wheel at a. The outer part of the axle tapers to a small cylinder at c. This small cylinder contacts the friction wheel, f, on the inside of that wheel. The carriage is at d with the bearings for the friction wheel at e. The friction wheel is free to turn as the main wheel, a, turns. A reduction in friction!? Now when I encounter a novel invention, I like to study it, to determine its secret. It is hiding right there in plain sight. It took me the better part of two days to realize how it works. Once I realized it, I found other references which confirmed the solution. Here is what it is not. It does not reduce friction! No matter the name, friction wheel, or the description that claims diminishing friction, this was misdirection. The coefficient of friction is a constant given the unguent and the materials. The force to move (tractive effort) is therefore a function of the normal force³ and the coefficient of friction. What changes in the Winans friction wheels is the torque applied to the bearing surfaces. When the main wheel turns, the small cylinder acts like a gear reduction (or lever, if you prefer), increasing torque. The small cylinder rides in the friction wheel groove, which is free to roll, and therefore moves readily. Once again, the friction wheel is a gear reduction, increasing torque at the bearing interface at e. The torque generated by the Winans system is higher than the torque generated from a non-compound system. 2½ pound of tractive effort generated enough torque to overcome the retarding friction for the Winans equipped waggon. Without the Winans patent, 9¾ pounds of tractive effort were required to overcome the retarding friction. Brilliant! Winans also detailed an enclosed friction wheel as part of the patent. Same labels, g representing the case. This will prove interesting later. The LMR, on the advice of "two engineers", per a board meeting, voted no confidence in the wheels and the effort was abandoned. In my opinion, this was a major miss by the LMR. The Winans equipped waggons, purchased by the LMR, dissappear from the LMR record. Winans was not a crackpot. Not only did the concept function, the enclosed system swiftly became an oil bath, further reducing friction and made the lubrication loss-less. He went on to be an prominent engineer with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. He was involved with Peter Cooper and the Tom Thumb locomotive. He patented several other railway improvements. He developed the camel back family of locomotives. The friction wheel patent was overturned in 1843, when it was challenged in court, based on narrow wording in the patent. 1843 -1828 =15 years. The patent was going to expire in another 2 years, but the courtroom expense was worth the squeeze. The board report does not indicate who the two LMR engineers who disparaged the friction wheels were. It is very hard to argue against a 4× improvement in efficiency, against a 68% advantage over your own improved waggon. One wonders if professional jealousy played a role. Here's looking at you George, engineer for the LMR. Vignoles and George had clashed in the past. Vignoles was a champion of the Braithwaite and Ericsson's Novelty and the Winans equipped waggons, a true competitor to his son Robert. Hmm. Illustrated: A passenger carriage for the B&O RR, showing the Winans Friction Wheels installed. Note the outside passenger seating, sideways. The inside passengers sat down below. Bee ¹of St Helens and Runcorn Railway and the Intersection Bridge fame. ²no idea what these were ³normal force: the force perpendicular to the surfaces. Example, one block resting on top of another. The normal force is gravity, pulling the top block down onto the lower.

@Dodge1965Hi! I did the tick and un-tick thing, and was still annoyed by unwanted intrusions I solved it by making a bookmark in my browser to this. https://community.hornbyhobbies.com/forum/3-hornby/ It brings me to the collection of sub-forums I like without the chaff. I don't know if this will work for you. Give it a try, its a link back to here. Therefore safe. Bee

Samsung Galaxy Samsung Browser V24.0.3.4 @gilbo2Thank you for trying in your device. Appreciated. @96RAFI've just discovered if I hit delete character (backspace) 2x in a row, the addressed correspondent is removed. Apparently, the problem was in-between the seat and the keyboard. Resolved. Bee

Whoops! This thread is in Forum and Website Feedback, not HM/DCC HM7000, as expected. Still my error. Sorry about that. I've started a new thread to address my concern. The moderators may delete both of my posts in this thread as they see fit. Bee

Here is something that has bedeviled me. Problem: delete direct address of correspondent I will type the "@" to bring up a correspondent. I select one. I cannot erase that correspondent address by "back character" if I selected the wrong one. I tried many ways. At first, I simply cleared all text and started over. I have found that if I highlight text before and after it, then "cut" it, I can work around this. Android. And I do understand that the many flavors of Android is an issue. Bee

Actually Colin, that is a great idea. Post photographs of both (? I think that is what you are saying) with an explanation for each type. Firehawk will not be the last one with this question. Bee

Here is something that has bedeviled me. Problem: delete direct address of correspondent I will type the "@" to bring up a correspondent. I select one. I cannot erase that correspondent address by "back character" if I selected the wrong one. I tried many ways. At first, I simply cleared all text and started over. I have found that if I highlight text before and after it, then "cut" it, I can work around this. Android. And I do understand that the many flavors of Android is an issue. Bee

Colin I've quite a bit of respect for you. You possess terrific knowledge. But you simply cannot be that unaware of your surroundings. As indicated last time, the photographs were not intended for you. To misrepresent, for a second time, what LesXRN posted is [redacted]. LesXRN posted his photographs for Firehawk. NOT FOR YOU. LesXRN was trying to help Firehawk, not answer your query. You could acknowledge that Colin, so that we do not go round and round. To claim that the photographs were wrong is okay. They applied to a model that Firehawk doesn't seem to have. Firehawk didn't identify the model. LesXRN could not have known the R number, since Firehawk did not publish it. Bee To be definite, I put in [redacted] instead of the choice words intended, not the moderators.

https://paintman.co.uk/shop/british-railways-maroon/ Sampled from that page, the color code is Others state #5A3839, which is very close Bee

Hi Colin Perhaps a jig could be turned in the lathe. A shallow depression sized to the OD of the flange. Mount the wheel into the depression, backside of wheel towards the lathe head. A simple screw down clamp would hold the wheel in the depression. Voila! The wheel concentric to the lathe's axis of revolution. Held perpendicular. Ready for accurate boring. Bee

Hi LT&SR_NSE The S&DR Experiment was an "Omnibus" style, where all of the passengers were facing in, in two long rows, towards each other. The passengers rode sideways. In the Diligence system, the passengers either faced the direction of travel or rode facing backwards. I encountered one tongue-in-cheek article about an Omnibus, which stated that passengers should no longer complain about who rode facing backwards, since in the Omnibus system, everyone rode sideways. Included was a jibe that the British public should appreciate the stylishness, since it was a French invention. There were many horsedrawn omnibus wagons in London, so the style is well documented. Bee

As an addendum The Wapping Tunnel Joyrides picked up speed. On 12 Aug 1829, we have a report from the Norwich and Bury Post, indicating the time of the joyride being 3 minutes. We know the tunnels is 2250 yards long. A quick bit of maths¹ yields an average velocity of 25.56 mph. In consideration that the joyrides had to accelerate to velocity and brought to a stop at the end of the tunnel, peak velocity would be higher! Admission to the tunnel, just to walk around, was 1 shilling. I do hope to eventually find the price of the joyride, which has to be more! Bee ¹The length of the Wapping Tunnel is 2250 yards. Therefore 2250 yards / 1760 yards per mile = 1.27 miles. 1.27 miles / (3 minutes/60 minutes per hour) = 25.56 mph average speed!