That is fine that Sam created something that you find acceptable. Once again, you also are assuming that something you are doing in Europe trumps anything done by others. The US had easily millions of successful locomotives. When you have that number of engines, it is not just dumb luck. These engines were incredibly powerful even down to zero cutoff. You don't generate that kind of steam with poor front ends. Rather, I applied the principles of US and others front ends to Fred's problem. And if he applies them, his front end should be fine.jma1009 wrote:Hi Bryce,
You really ought to read all the available UK Rugby Test reports of British Railways of the late 1940s and 1950s. These were mostly draughting tests under the watch of Sam Ell.
These were tests on fullsize locos.
They surpass Goss and Young in the USA by a considerable margin.
If you have not read the Rugby Test reports (most are available online now) I would humbly suggest you do so, and reflect.
They require modification in miniature which Jos Koopmans has done, and he has also reformulated the Ell mathematics and formulae into something that can be easily understood and applied.
Personally, I would regard Jos's work as one of the most significant achievements in miniature locomotive design in the last 60 years.
It's significance and application has been used in the UK and Europe for 10 years. I do not quite understand why our USA cousins do not embrace it and use it!
I think the main problem you have, Bryce, is that you have never built a miniature loco, and argue things to the limit of toleration from an armchair! Those of us who get covered in smuts and oil deserve a bit of tolerance from you!
I have redraughted miniature locomotive smokebox designs applying Jos's work all over the world from Australia to South Africa and also for a few friends building UK designs in USA. Plus many in the UK.
Semantic arguing gets us all no where.
Read all about Sam Ell then come back to us with either a demolition of his thesis and principles, or agree with us in the UK and Europe!
Cheers,
Julian
You are also suggesting that Sam's research somehow is more relavent than either Goss or Young which seems a bit presumptuous.
My discussion of the 1/6 1/3 is based on the seat of the pants efforts of many modelers on this forum. Theory support what these guys find. My locomotive design is based on their efforts. However, you are arguing European design against US design. For this, you must be intimately familiar with US locomotive design. If you simply throw away the front end and replace it with a new design, you will never learn what was originally wrong with the front end. Fred specifically asked for anyone's thought on his design. I am anyone..
My issues with Jos has to do with his application of his math. Porta knew his math was incorrect. He even explained the source of the error was probably due to pulsations. Jos uses the similar calculations that Porta used. And of course Young disagrees with both.
So there is no question that simple momentum calculations cannot be used to design next generation front ends or even to explain old front ends.
So what we are left with is simple equations and ratios to design front ends. This is exactly the solutions that Porta despised. Ratios do not scale properly when blast angles must be accounted for.
Clearly, if your calculations do not include the minimum blast angle, then you are forced to use simple ratios of sizes for design. Perhaps eventually, I will release all of my simulations. But I do not accept Jos explanations of things. Perhaps his latest explanation of angles illustrates the point.
And his suggestion that anyone believes fairy tales illustrates his typical attitude of anyone that disagrees with him. Lol.. The best in this thread was "travesty of momentum". This is hardly an answer to a technical discussion.
Bryce
