"Cold Steam" Locos

Back in the late 40's or early 50's, The Model Railroader had an article about essentially live steam locos in O gauge that used dry
ice for power rather than a steam boiler. Does anyone here know of anybody who has done this? Despite the threat of contributing to global warming by powering a model loco with a chunk of solid CO2 in a sealed tender cannister, it's a very interesting idea to me. Add modern radio control, rather than the crude controls back then, and you'd have a small scale backyard "steam" RR without blowers, silver soldering, etc...
Just wondering,
Dale
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dale Carlson wrote:

a) any live steam engine can be run on dry ice if the rate of evaporation is high enough. b) there are risks of personal injury associated with handling dry ice. c) you won't contribute to global warming by running a locomotive on dry ice, as the dry ice just uses CO2 that already exists. d) OTOH, the refrigeration machinery used to produce dry ice will contribute to CO2 production
HTH
--
wolf k.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:41:28 -0400, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

Why not just use CO2 in pressure tanks, and spare the energy used to freeze it?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:38:16 -0700, Steve Caple

In that case, it makes more sense to use compressed air, as with the pneumatic locos Porter and others made for industrial use. But I'm not sure that would scale down to O or even G without having very high pressure tanks. Maybe if you're a good enough machinist to make something that small that doesn't leak much, but I'm not...
Maybe vinegar and baking soda would work- when I was a kid (long ago), I had a toy sub that used that to shoot missiles which would be a product liability lawyer's dream today :)
Sorry about starting a global warming thread- that wasn't my intent, but I should have known better.
Dale
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good afternoon Dale;
wrote:

Compressed air would be simpler, safer, and cheaper in the long run. Unfortunately, it's also noisy. Of course, someone may complain that generating the electricity would create more CO2. Well, so would the computers which the responses to you were typed on. In fact, nearly everything associated with electricity is about dissipated heat, including model railroading. Bummer.

Global warming isn't attributed to any single event. Yeah, one can blame fossil fuels. Take a look at your neighbourhood. Chances are it is heated by fossil fuels, built of wood to some extent, and the only green is grass. The most efficient filters of CO2 are trees. How many do you see standing, and are seasonal? Wood is also an alternative heating source. Above that, all plants release some CO2 as well for growth.
You asked a legitimate question. It's unfortunate that some got carried away. It's a common problem with most threads.
Cheers, John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dale Carlson wrote:

<snip>

Yeah, well, *I* had a toy PT boat that ran on baking soda and bath water. Bet my PT boat would have sunk your sub! <g>
mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, yeah, maybe. But could it have put my eyes out too? :)
Dale
Amazing how we survived on simple common sense only a few decades ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dale Carlson wrote:

Well, no, since it was plastic, and about 2" long, and just putted along in the tub.

Right. We didn't have warning labels like "do not lift lawnmower above head to trim bushes".
mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dale Carlson wrote:

I remember the article. It seemed and seems a quite workable concept. Potential problems: - everything that gets hot on a live steam loco will be freezing cold. - small passages may well ice up. - you would need to control the volume of atmosphere getting to the sealed cannister so as to control the volume and pressure of gas given off.
You'd actually be instantaniously contributing to 'global cooling' although producing the frozen CO2 would have created more warming.
Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Greg Procter" <

CO2 is what plants absob from the atmosphere.
Regardless of Al (Knows nothing) Gore, CO2 is not bad. It's what keeps all green things alive. There's less CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 1000 years ago.
-- Cheers
Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:- http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra / Latitude: 48 25' North Longitude: 123 21' West
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Uh, *too much* CO2 *IS* bad. See Venus for an example. And if we don't cut down the way we're loading the atmosphere with it, it's going to be *very* bad for our descendants.
And you just heard this from a Republican who's not too crazy about Al Gore.
(Free hint: reality is reality, even when it falls trippingly from the tongue of someone you cordially dislike.)
-Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

On the bright side, our fossil fuel sources will eventually be depleted bringing things back to normal, whatever that is. Perhaps road apples will become fashionable again.
Cheers, John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A more serious green house gas is methane, guess what those road apples give off? An animal population sufficient to produce half of what we depend on fossil fuel for would produce dramatic consequences for the environment, probably all bad for humans.
If there is a tipping point and we pass it then it doesn't matter that we are no longer contributing to the imbalance.
The earth is warming, the historical record (recent and past) confirm this. If you don't want to believe that then no amount of evidence will convince you. It doesn't matter why the temp is rising, the facts show that it is.
We have no plan to deal with the warming and its consequences. This stupid on mankinds part even if mankind hasn't contributed to the problem.
Remove the current contribution being made by the USA and we are still on a collision course with a very different enironment.
As for too much CO2, remember H2O is a basic requirement for human survival but, too much of it can kill you.
Paul -- All hail the savior algae. -- Excuse me, I'll be right back. I have to log onto a server in Romania and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information before they suspend my accounts. -- Working the rockie road of the G&PX
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Aye. If the Ice Age killed the animals off, then is it safe to assume their methane by products warmed the Earth after their demise?
Well, you have Americans like Henry Ford and JD Rockefeller to thank.
Cheers, John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thank them for the Ice Age or the decomposing bodies? Paul -- Excuse me, I'll be right back. I have to log onto a server in Romania and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information before they suspend my accounts.
Working the rockie road of the G&PX
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Roger T." wrote:

Hi Roger, the act of freezing the CO2 is what would produce more warming! No mechanical action is 100% efficient so more energy must be put into the action of freezing than can be given out in returning the CO2 to room temperature. The amounts of carbon and oxygen on Earth are fairly constant, ignoring the odd nuclear reaction, space shot and asteroids falling to earth. I wasn't around 1000 years ago so I can't comment about the comparisons between the atmospheres.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger T. wrote:

What's the number now? What was it in 1008 AD? Where did you get those numbers, Roger?
--
wolf k.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

Um, I just saw a report mentioned in mainstream media that said that it's been going up since the 1970's, when they started taking counts, and that it's the highest in I forget how many thousand years (this article was a week or two ago).
mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So how would the media know it's the highest in several thousand years. BTW a thousand years agoi or so CO2 was 17 times current level and the tempearture was dropping.
Source a book called "Earth" by Dorling Kindersley. :) My Website: http://gannetweb.awardspace.com Delete the You Know What to email me!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony wrote:

Source of Kindersley's figures? (1000 years ago was 1008)

--
wolf k.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.