The Science of Track Cleaning (Video#86)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ส.ค. 2024
- There are dozens of videos on TH-cam dealing with the subject of track cleaning and most of them start with a disclaimer like “This is just the way I do it” or “This is what works for me”. So I thought it would be a good idea to add a little science to the mix.
If you like my work, please consider supporting it with a donation:
www.paypal.com/biz/fund?id=Y2...
IoTT Stick Github Repository: Github.com/tanner87661/IoTTStick
Tindie page for IoTT Stick, Interface Boards and Function Hats: www.tindie.com/stores/tanner8...
MyIoTT.org (landing page under construction): myiott.org/
Ron's Trains n' Things video: • Stop Cleaning Your Tra...
Joe Fugate Column: s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/mr...
Sanchem Inc NO-OX-ID A SPECIAL: www.sanchem.com/docs/SDS-Shee...
Table of Content
0:00 Start
0:30 Aesthetical aspects of Track Cleaning
1:03 A Technical look at Track Cleaning
1:45 Mechanical cleaning
2:40 Chemical cleaning
3:40 Micro arcing explained
6:50 NO-OX-ID "A SPECIAL"
7:50 Application on N scale layout
8:50 What about pulling force?
10:00 Static and kinetic friction
11:30 Pulling force measurement results
15:24 Conclusions - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Finaly an actual genuine analysis thank you , Results as I expected
Thank you.
I used IPA for years followed by a track cleaning car with a piece of hardboard sliding underneath. For the most part it did very well but to me it did require repeated treatments. When I read Joe's article, it made me think about track cleaning again. Like Pierre, I have purchased some mineral spirits to try. As my layout is still in the early stages I haven't had the time to give it a try yet but hope to in a few weeks. I'm also going to see if I can get some No-OX-ID as everything I've read so far matches your findings Hans. Still, I think that one of the biggest problems for N-scalers, at least, is not just dirty track but the very light weight of the locomotives. Combined with dirty track there is no wonder as to why we get flickering lights. Fortunately for me, my small locomotives, switchers, will be doing their work on mainly level ground. My heavy Atlas Trainmasters will do the mainline and that's kept to a maximum 2% grade.
Yes, the light weight does add to the problem, as the maximum pulling force is weight times friction coefficient! And as the weight pretty much goes with the volume of the locomotive body, it is reduced with the third power of the scale. So, smaller scales, less proportional pulling force. Now I know why I like Garden Railroads ;-)
The logic and way you approach the topic are very convincing to me. I will try it and hope to have the same results you mention. Thank you for creating this video.
Thank you. Please let us know about your findings.
Excellent - proper scientific testing! That is exactly what is called for. Thank you for this.
Thank you!
@@IoTT Incidentally, one other thing that might benefit from scientific testing in this field is the extent to which various abrasive means of track cleaning do in fact scratch the track and thus increase micro-arcing and debris build-up.
thank too much for your great exposition, i will try that fastly on my layout
Thank you. Go for it!
I have seen Ron video a while ago. He his doing great Nscale video, I follo his channel. I have purchased mineral spirit a while ago for track cleaning. But Didn’t purchase yet the No Ox I’d special A yet. As my layout construction is not far along. Thanks for testing this solution and report your findings. I like you have try to mesure the pulling force that a key drawback of this method. Thanks Hans for sharing.
Glad you like the video. It was actually quite interesting to do and I learned a lot doing these measurements.
I have been using paper towel to clean/wipe my nickel tracks with no problem
Whatever works for you, do it. ;-)
Your chart of different locos makes me wonder why, apart from traction tires, some are better "pullers" than others
This is a function of the weight and the number of driven axles. The maximum pulling force is the product of weight on the pulling axle and the friction coefficient. If now half of the weight of the locomotive is supported by non driven axles, the maximum pulling force is only half compared to when the entire weight is on driven axles. That's why on locomotives with fewer driven axles you typically see more traction tires as rubber on metal has a significantly higher friction coefficient, which helps to compensate for the lower weight on the driven axle.
Thanks for this video! I really enjoyed the analysis! Makes you wonder how far we are from moving the signal out of the rails using a standard that can be shared across manufactures.
Good point! But unfortunately I am not very optimistic that this will happen anytime soon :-(
Thanks for this great video! Do you have any alternate solution for NO OX ID? I live in Europe, so I need something accessible here. E. g. can copper paste be an alternative?
Unfortunately not, but I think any type of contact grease will behave similar like NO-OX-ID in both areas, electrically and mechanically. So, I think copper or graphite paste are worth to try out if you can live with the reduced friction level (would actually be interesting to do a comparative study on those). If not, then you probably should use mineral spirits, e.g. petroleum.
Soy Manel vivo Gerona ( Sain). He conseguido NO OX ID en Amazon sin roblema
Would you use this with traction tres as people report that could be issues
I was thinking to remove the traction tire on all my locomotive anyway . Look like it is the way to go with this solution. According to the locomotive Hans had tested. The steam engine are similar than the crocodile one. Look like those will have more lost in their tractive force.
It really looks like the impact of the grease on the rubber reduces the friction coefficient significantly, so I would think about it twice. And probably not use it ;-)
On the other hand, I don't think that the grease is destroying the rubber as NO-OX-ID seem chemically quite neutral, so I have no concerns from that point of view.
Removing traction tires might be an option, but as there is normally a groove on the wheel where the tire sits in, you probably would have to replace the entire wheel.
On the positive end, it seems that newer locomotives tend to have more driven axles than older ones, which reduces the problem.
I don't see how the dielectric constant of isopropyl alcohol makes any difference. That is a specification for while it still exists as a liquid. I believe that all of the alcohol (and water if using something like 70% or "rubbing alcohol") evaporates rather quickly. So how can the dielectric of something that evaporates completely matter? Am I missing something?
See my comments to Merlin Island & Crab Cove Railway's remark a few line below. Solvent and dirt make a nice filler for the unevenness of the rail head, and at the same time you wipe of the majority of it, you rub a portion nicely in every available hole, where it has the effect I describe in the video.
@@IoTT The thickness of any dirt in unevennes is extremely small. I find it hard (impossible actually) to imagine that any water or alcohol wouldn't have flashed off in a matter of minutes, more likely seconds, or less. My background is electrical engineering and I think the dialectric constant of rubbing alcohol is totally a non-issue.
@@trainliker100 I have to agree. The polarity of a solvent in liquid form has zero influence when the solvent evaporates. 91% IPA, for example, flashes off in seconds and has absolutely zero chemical reaction with most metals (any we would use). That's why it is used extensively in industry to clean metals, clean electrical circuit and contacts.
As far as IPA (or similar) creating a filler putty of crud that lodges into micro scratches and pits in the track goes, the same could be said for any of the recommended, "low polarity" solvents, such as mineral spirits. Whether it's IPA or mineral spirits, it's just going to mix with the crud on the track and eventually evaporate. So I'm not convinced the polarity of a selected solvent has much bearing on anything. Let's face it, unless a solvent has a chemical reaction with the metal, it has zero affect once evaporated. I think that just about any solvent such as IPA, mineral spirits, etc. are perfectly fine to clean track with. Until someone does a proper scientific test, with full controls, I'm going to remain skeptical about solvent polarity.
Once clean, however, I think a contact treatment such as NO-OX-ID is a really good idea. Protecting the track from oxidation or contamination caused by both atmospheric conditions and electrical arcing makes a world of sense. I think this is what is making the most difference for people who are cleaning and treating thier track with these products.
For track cleaning, I would never use anything more abrasive than a cotton sock. And at least for N scale, the oxide of nickel silver is more conductive than any coating you could apply. And too little is ever said about the effects of chemicals on locomotive traction tires.
Thanks for sharing. I agree, the effect of solvents on traction tires would be an interesting topic to look at.
But the solvent evaporates!
Yes, we would like to think that on a flat surface like a rail head the solvent will disappear. Unfortunately, under a microscope, the rail head looks more like the moon surface with crates and hills everywhere. This even gets worse if you use any kind of abrasive treatment. If you then add a solvent, you pretty much create a filler putty with the dirt on the rail, then you take a rag and rub it into the valleys. Your rails might look shine, but the dirt sits in the microstructure and in those valley it will take time for the solvent to disappear. And even if it does, you still have the filler sitting there, forming a capacitor with the effects I describe in the video.