HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: enders@bolshoi.cc.misu.NoDak.edu (Todd Enders)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: ARCAS Performance...
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:30:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.19824
Reply-To: enders@bolshoi.uucp


     I came across some specifications for the ARCAS, and, having previously
lamented about not being able to achieve similar performance from an HPR
model, I have to possibly reconsider this position.

     ARCAS Specifications:

     Total Length:    7.5 ft.	
     Diameter:        4.5 in.
     Take-off Weight:  77 Lb.
     Payload Weight:   12 Lb.
     Burn time:        29 sec.
     Avg. Thrust:     336 Lb.      (ca. 1495 Nt.)
     Peak Alt.         32 Mi.

     Total impulse would be about 43,400 Nt/sec., just a bit more than an O
engine.  So, maybe with a suitable N or O engine, one could duplicate or
exceed this level of performance with say a 50 Lb rocket carrying a smaller
payload (say 5 lb.).  Something along the line of an N700 or an O1200 would
be just the thing, but the HP motor manufacturers don't (as far as I know)
make motors with such a thrust curve.  Of course, if one has the cash for
a special order... :-)

     Now, if one could get ahold of some O20,000s, one *could* put together
a cluster of 7 in a full-scale Nike and come out about right, powerwise.
Now *that* would make for an impressive launch at BALLS!!! :-)

Todd          enders@bolshoi.uucp
              uunet!bolshoi!enders
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: bingham@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (David Bingham)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: JETEX motors
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:36:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA

>    I have one of those JETEX engines, bought it in the early 70's. 
>    I used to use it with an 18" wingspan hand-launch glider that had 
>    a pod above the wings for mounting the motor.  As I remember, it
>    didn't work all that great, I would actually toss the glider as 
>    usual and let the motor push it around while gliding...it really
>    didn't have enough power to climb the glider.
>
>    Can you still get the JETEX fuel pellets??  Is JETEX still around??
>    Is my old motor worth Zillions??
>
>    Thanks,
>
>    Mark.


	JETEX engines, motors, fuel, fuse and gaskets are available 
from Peck Polymers. Additionally there is a 6 times a year newsletter 
available for all you JETEX engine fans. 

	The address for the Jetex newsletter 'Pssst Off' is:

	Roger Walthen Sr.
	3242 No. DeQuincy Street
	Indianapolis, IN  46218

The subscription is $9.00 for one year. Six issues. Make the check
out to Roger Walthen Sr.

        The address for Peck Polymers. It's $3 for a catalog and
they're a little backed up. Running about a month. Orders are 
much quicker.

        Peck Polymers
        P.O. Box 710399-MB
        Santee, CA  92072-0399

        (619) 448-1818 for phone orders

Enjoy.

David Bingham
bingham@sr.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Denatured alcohol
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:20:56 GMT
Followup-To: rec.models.railroad
Organization: Bugs-R-Us



In article <1992Aug11.230455.25400@cid.aes.doe.CA>,
afsidgb@cidsv07.Berkeley.EDU (Gerard Burridge) writes:

#  Is there another name for denatured alcohol?

I think it's what we here call methylated spirits. 

-- Ken "d.t.'s" Johnson


-- 
////  Advice to dieters:          ////  Ken Johnson, A I Applications Institute
////    Never eat more than       ////       80 South Bridge, EDINBURGH EH1 1HN
////    you can carry.            ////                 E-mail ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk
////               -- Miss Piggy  ////     phone 031-650 2756  fax 031-650 6513
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: sdejour@mksol.dseg.ti.com (stewart l dejournett)
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:04:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.212727.12265@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) writes:
>I haven't yet found the "perfect" micro for this application (I've had 
>this in mind for several years now), but it might be worth taking a look 

Herb
   You might not find the perfect micro but might need to go to an ASIC.  Most
of the silicon compilers these days have libraries of processor cores that
would be usable.  A masked ROM also costs $$ to get set up so maybe the $$
for an ASIC are comparable.  You can do some ASIC work on PC's these days as
well so a high end workstation is not always needed.  Just a thought

stewart

Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: nd2k@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (alfred.a.schwarz..jr)
Subject: 2 Beginner questions
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:58:33 GMT


	Two questions from a new model railroder (me):


	I am building a Funnel-Flow tank car kit from Walthers. There
was a product review write-up last year in MR on these kits; the author
stated for all styrene-styrene assembly he used Testor's liquid cement.
I found this to be OK for everything except putting the 2 tank halves
together. By the time I worked my way around the edges of the tank half,
most of the glue had dried/evaporated. In other words, when one has to
cover a lot of "real-estate" with liquid cement, what is the proper 
technique?? (There is no way to run the brush along the inside seams
with these tank halves).

For this step only, I resorted to the Testor's squeeze tube glue with
a lot of care (because it is very "stringy").


	Question #2: Does anyone have any comments on Testor's
airbrush system? I picked up a brochure at one of the hobby shops
around here and it looks interesting. Supposedly the airbrush body
is 1-piece construction, and hence doesn't have to be taken apart and
cleaned. You can pop in different paint spray nozzles, and to change
colors or clean the brush you just run solvent through till clean.
They also say it has a lifetime guarantee as long as you don't try
to take apart the body. They will repair or replace. It can also
act as single or double action brush. I was all set to buy a
Badger or Paasche until I saw this brochure. Did MR ever review
this??
-- 

						Al Schwarz  ND2K
						(908) 949-3890
						cbnewsh!nd2k
From: romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Michael Stimac)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Command-control  14 speeds not enough
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:55:08 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <4908@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> ebe@pitt.edu (Elmer Beachley) writes:
>
>Michael:
>
>Is your concern over the number of available speeds primarily to enable
>matching dissimilar units in multi-unit operation, or are there other
>instances where you see this is important?
>
My name is "Michael" also, although not the one you are querying.

Anyway, *my* concern with the number of speeds has nothing to do with
matching units in MU operation. My concern is that folks, myself
included, are used to using an analog speed controller with a
continuously variable speed. Most of these folks, myself included,
will regard a small number of stepped speeds as being a technical
regression, certainly not an improvement. 

In the first place, there are lots of locomotives out there besides
diesel locomotives. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the speed of
even a diesel depends on more than just what notch it's in, like
the load, the grade, the use of braking, etc. A command control
system that has only 7 (or 15 or 20) speeds is unacceptable in
my eyes, and I would have nothing to do with it.

>As far as the prototypes go, the Diesel Cyclopedia from Model Railroader
>mentions just briefly that "a 4 solenoid throttle control ... provides
>seven engine speeds above idle, is the most widely used M.U. connection."
>

Never mind MU, I just want to be able to control one locomotive
at the speed *I* prefer, not at some pre-programmed speed. Having
a small number of fixed speeds is cheesey and 'toy-like'.

another 2 cents
Michael Stimac
-- 
Michael Stimac
(415) 355-8889
romeo@tymnet.com
These opinions are not necessarily anyone's but my own.
From: ebe+@pitt.edu (Elmer Beachley)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: N scale digital (Arnold) receivers
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:03:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Scott:

I've just fitted the smallest Arnold decoder into an HO Kato GP35 and it
was very easy.  Obviously, no space problems.

There are 6 wires: 2 go to the motor, 2 go to the track and the remainder
are for special functions (lights, sound, whatever.)

I've never seen the inside of an Arnold loco, but I'd expect fitting
the decoder should be quite straightforward.  Arnold has to manufacturer
these things, too.

Elmer
ebe@unix.cis.pitt.edu
From: wbrown@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (Bill Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Dressing up an HO-scale Docksider
Date: 13 Aug 1992 15:16:56 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.192.17

In article <1992Aug12.193212.469@hubcap.clemson.edu> jtthorp@hubcap.clemson.edu (J. T. Thorpe) writes:
>I have an old Lifelike (gasp!) Docksider that I would like to fix up.
>It runs ok--it hasn't given me any problems--but it looks
>disappointingly toy-like.  I haven't found any photos of the real thing,
>or articles on dressing up Docksiders in particular.
>
>First off, is there a dress-up/detail kit for Docksiders?  If not, does
>any one have recommendations on how to start out?  This is the first
>time I've tried super-detailing any of my engines/rolling stock apart
>from weathering.
>
>Here's the plan:
> ...

I've seen adds in _MR_ and _RMC_ for a re-issue of the "Little Joe"
by English, I think, or Bowser.  I think it's the Varney late (plastic
superstructure) version.  A "super-detail" kit is offered.  I've seen
the engine as well as the super-detail kit mentioned in some of the
mail-order-house adds.  Hmmm - could it be that Bowser owns the
English line - come to think about it, I called Bowser several months
ago to get p/a info on some parts for a Bowser trolley and the person
I talked to was John English - Probably John English Jr.

There was an article in MR several years ago (by Ed Smallshaw, maybe?)
on a similar project.  Perhaps someone with an index will be able to find
a reference.  Many years ago there were pictures in MR of one (maybe the
last) of the prototype units ( there were 4 - 3 were tank engines and 1
had a tender) being cut up for scrap.  I believe they were B&O class C16a,
but that's a bit foggy.  Built around 1916-17.  I remember seeing a book
(which I didn't buy, bummer!) that gave the details.

Anyway - good luck on the project!

Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own and have	    |
    nothing to do with the official policy or the   |  -bill
    management of L.B.L, who probably couldn't      |   wlbrown@lbl.gov
    care less about employees who play with trains. |
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: sdejour@mksol.dseg.ti.com (stewart l dejournett)
Subject: Re: Comment on sound
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:08:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.103005.1@dion.trl.oz.au> backway@dion.trl.oz.au writes:
>Comment on sound systems:
>
>	If my 5 year old can have a Troll that says in perfect (american)
>english "Kiss me for luck" and various other niceties for around $A8.00, using
>a custom digital sound reproduction chip, I feel it is about time that real
>sounding train sounds should be available at a low cost large volume price.
>	When is somebody going to do it?

The toys you speak of sell in the millions so the scale or the amoritization
of the NRE (non-recurring-cost) is spread out over the millions sold.  In 
the model world I believe we are in the 1000 >> 10,000 range (I'm sure
someone probably has better numbers).

The TI sound generator chip 76477 (out-of-production) was used in the past
for some Train sound circuits.  The logic is in the silicon libraries so
if someone wanted to generated this custom chip you speak of they have a
core on which to start.  However, I believe the numbers do NOT support
the NRE $$$ required to generate the chip or some enterprising manufacturer
would have done it.  Also, a lot of the manufacturers are cottage industry
so can NOT afford it.  A biggie would need to do it.

my 2 cents
stewart de journett

Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: Bruce@Pixar.com (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:39:01 GMT

In article <4649@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> ebe+@pitt.edu (Elmer Beachley)  
writes:

> with a open system, multiple sources and competition, will the demand
> for this type of stuff every drive the prices low enough to meet the
> goal of a $50 decoder?

Gosh, I don't see why not. Let's look at the hardware we are talking about
here:

First, a simple embedded-controller microprocessor. Say a 4-bit controller
with 512 bytes to 1K internal PROM. These cost about $2 in quantity.

Then a few bytes of non-volatile RAM for the ID and throttle curve data.
Either EAROM, or battery-backed RAM. Say $2 for the RAM and $2 for the
battery.

Then we have a zener diode (for the maintenance-mode-detect feature) and
the power supply rectifier and filter capacitor. Say $4 .

Then there's the power transistor to drive the motor (we'll use the
microprocessor to pulse-modulate it, so it won't run hot). $1 .

And we need a double-sided PC board. $5.

$1 for copying the instructions, and you have a $14 parts cost for a kit.
Mark it up to $20 to cover shipping and other expenses, and any model
club could distribute them.

Now, do this on a commercial scale. Use surface-mount components and
a microprocessor with built-in EAROM, and it's going to be cheaper than
that. Pot the whole thing to protect it from prying fingers, and you  
should still be able to make a profit at $30.

Now, if you can find me a microprocessor with built-in EAROM that fits
in an 18-pin DIP or smaller, I can get this to fit in a Z-gauge tender.
I can do all of the software work and most of the hardware. Anyone want
to help?
						Bruce Perens
From: hansend@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Command-control 14 speeds not enough
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:22:53 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2331@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM 
(Michael Stimac) writes:
> In article <4908@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> ebe@pitt.edu (Elmer Beachley) writes:
>>
>>Michael:
>>
>>Is your concern over the number of available speeds primarily to enable
>>matching dissimilar units in multi-unit operation, or are there other
>>instances where you see this is important?
>>
> My name is "Michael" also, although not the one you are querying.
> 

Stuff Deleted

> In the first place, there are lots of locomotives out there besides
> diesel locomotives. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the speed of
> even a diesel depends on more than just what notch it's in, like
> the load, the grade, the use of braking, etc. A command control
> system that has only 7 (or 15 or 20) speeds is unacceptable in
> my eyes, and I would have nothing to do with it.
> 
>>As far as the prototypes go, the Diesel Cyclopedia from Model Railroader
>>mentions just briefly that "a 4 solenoid throttle control ... provides
>>seven engine speeds above idle, is the most widely used M.U. connection."
>>
> 

This appeal to MU characteristics of the "Real Thing" ignores the
reality of the model world.  The power developed by a model locomotive 
as a function of the weight of the train is much different from the real 
world.  This means that model trains going up hills, across level 
ground, and down don't behave just like their full scale brethren.  In 
order to give a realistic rendition of a train slowly climbing a grade, 
switching, starting a long heavy drag, etc., the model world needs 
significanly more precise speed control than than can be provided by 8, 
or 16, or whatever notches in your throttle.  IF the number of notches 
were to approach something like 60 notches from 0 to 12 Volts, giving 
speed variations of roughly 0.2 Volt per notch, then I think you might 
have enough precision in control to be acceptable.  Of course, it would 
be desirable to be able to vary the size of the step across the range, 
to enhance performance.  I other words, a 0.2 Volt, or whatever, 
difference in throttle setting at slow speeds is not equivalent in model 
performance to 0.2 Volt difference at high speeds.  

Doug Hansen  Hansend@physc1.BYU.edu
From: romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Michael Stimac)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:49:54 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Aug14.212954.14790@linus.mitre.org> sra@bistromath.mitre.org (Stan R. Ames) writes:
>
>If you do not fall into one of those catagories I might suggest waiting as
>Keller will come out with a digital version of OnBoard, Keeler will come

But don't bother waiting if you're not in H0. Keller has no plans,
currently, for bringing out 0-scale capable receivers. I've no
idea if the digital receivers will be small enough for N-scale.
Stan?

>out with a digital version of CTC 80 Lenz will come out with a new command
>station and in the background is the proposed standards effort.  This next
>year promishes to be interesting.  Some fallout will likely occur in the
>not to distant future.

The so-far unique sound capability of Keller stuff makes it
a product that has no competition, in some ways. Thus, the competition
is not "pure". In any case, having a multi-thousand dollar investment
in Keller products, I'm not about to change in a casual fashion.
I suspect that many of the modelers who will have command control
already have an installation of some kind, and conversion is a
major issue, not just how good the newer systems are.

Michael Stimac

-- 
Michael Stimac
(415) 355-8889
romeo@tymnet.com
These opinions are not necessarily anyone's but my own.
From: jtthorp@hubcap.clemson.edu (J. T. Thorpe)
Subject: Dressing up an HO-scale Docksider
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:32:12 GMT

I have an old Lifelike (gasp!) Docksider that I would like to fix up.
It runs ok--it hasn't given me any problems--but it looks
disappointingly toy-like.  I haven't found any photos of the real thing,
or articles on dressing up Docksiders in particular.

First off, is there a dress-up/detail kit for Docksiders?  If not, does
any one have recommendations on how to start out?  This is the first
time I've tried super-detailing any of my engines/rolling stock apart
from weathering.

Here's the plan:

1.  The piston chambers must go--they are a blob of cheap plastic formed
    into the basic shape, but it looks terrible.

2.  I'm going to replace the alligator crossheads that came on the
    model.

3.  I tried to replace the horn-hook couplers with Kadee #5's, but there
    is no box, and the coupler mechanism is held in place with a plastic
    pin that is actually a part of the loco frame.  My idea is to cut
    the frame up a little, and put in the box that is provided w/Kadee
    couplers--can any one give me some advice?

4.  Now, I could really use some help on figuring out what superdetail
    parts I should put on the engine.  For instance, What type of air
    pumps would be appropriate, and where do they go?  What other sorts
    of things should I be paying attention to?

5.  I, of course, will do some weathering.

6.  There doesn't appear to be enough room in the cab for detailing the
    inside, but does any one have suggestions?

Thanks!

JT Thorpe

-- 
JT Thorpe   ____________      ____________            ______         ][
CS Dept  __/____________\____/____________\__  	       |=+=|---()__o_][ c
Clemson	   |[][][][][][]|    |[][][] |[]| |   _/-----| |=|=|   |    |  ]}
 Univ. 	 [_|____________|_][_|_______|__|_|_]|_______|=|___|-----------___
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: stev@vax.ftp.com  (stev knowles)
Subject: Re: McKean Open Beam Car Questions/Comments
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 08:55:44

In article <1992Aug19.154051.5010@gw.wmich.edu> 31ochs@gw.wmich.edu writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.163109.25674@linus.mitre.org>, sboyle@mbunix.mitre.org (Boyle) writes:
>also just as bad.(I have the Chessie 12-car set, and almost every truck
>was unusable)
>


you must have missed my flames about this about 8 months ago. the short
answer is to flame at concor about it, and they will mail you new
sideframes. they are not apologetic about it, and are not leting people know
about this policy. their number is 708-595-0210.

i am at the point with them that i wont buy their stuff anymore. just not
worth the hassles . . . . 



Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: SDupa@xview.csuohio.edu (Scott Hewis)
Subject: San Diego Model Railroad Club Info
Organization: Cleveland State University - Telecomm 
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:08:29 GMT

A friend of mine is going to the TCA meet in San Diego the end of this month
and would like to see the model railroad club there.  From what I'm told this
club has both HO and N scale pikes.

We would appreciate any and all information on the club i.e. days and hours
open, that anyone out in netland has to offer.

Many thanks in advance.

Scott
--------------------------------------
* Scott Hewis; Telecom Specialist    *
* Cleveland State University         *
* email c/o scott@asgard.csuohio.edu *
--------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: cal@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam)
Subject: Re: Looking for GP30; should have said FP30...
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:15:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.152601.4960@gw.wmich.edu> 31ochs@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>There is also a GP49 and GP59, but I don't know the HP for these.
>(also  included with the GP59 would be the F59PH  some passenger RRs have)
>

The F59PH, like the F40PH had a 3000 HP engine.  However, it did this
using the 12-cylinder 710 cu" engine instead of the 16-cylinder 645 cu"
engine.  Additionally, it had a separate engine to drive the HEP
generator so that the enitre 3000 HP could be used for pulling the train.
The F59PH from the front looks as if it is a comfort-cab version of
a GP- style locomotive, meaning that it has a front porch unlike the
F40PH, but as the "F" indicates, it had a cowled (full width) body.

Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE            |    MY CANADA INCLUDES CANADIANS!
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute      | I would really like this to include
Toronto, Ontario, Canada             | Quebec - but I won't hold my breath.
From: "steve waller" <steve.waller@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: via gp30
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:51:34 EST
Reply-To: "steve waller" <steve.waller@canrem.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

BT>I just got back of photo of the engine in question:
BT>#6455   with the following designation under the number:
BT>GPA-30c.
BT>Is this a FP40?  If so, what does GPA-30c mean?

As I mentioned in another post, this is an F40PH-2.  Do you have the unit
number, because my book does not list a GPA-30c.

units 6400-6429 are GPA-30a, while 6430-6458 are GPA-30b.

Anyhow, the Canadian roads have "classes" for their units. CN and VIA
use the same system.
G  = built by GMD or EMD
P  = passenger
A  = cab unit ie "A" unit
30 = horsepower divided by 100 (ie 3000 hp unit)
a  = identifies from which order the unit came.

Hope this helps!!  Steve
---
  DeLuxe 1.1 #1665  STEEL RAILS: Keep Them Humming!!
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad