# No grumps allowed: Smoke question



## tommyheadleycox (Oct 15, 2010)

Advance notice: The description of this beginner's forums says about askinq questions here: "Don't be shy or concerned that you will be ridiculed, it won't happen in this forum." Unfortunately, I've seen that exact same thing happen, folks ridiculed, usually by the same 2 or 3 members, over and over. So, if you don't really like answering beginners' questions, please: Stop reading now. Move on to another topic. Don't reply to me with a belittling comment. Just don't do it. Just pretend I didn't even post.
------------------------
My question is about smoke. I've always thought that the single most fascinating visual element of an operating steam locomotive is the dense, overwhelming thick column of smoke it puts out. It's just an amazing sight, the sheer volume of smoke being pumped high into the air. But I've never seen it duplicated in a large scale model locomotive, not even in the very expensive German dynamic units. 

I'm guessing that the laws of chemistry dictate that it can NOT be done and I wonder if there any chemists on the forum who would agree with me. Basically, I'm guessing that smoke -whatever kind you make - can not be scaled down to the sizes we use on our garden layouts. Even if you burned used motor oil, or wood smoke, or disel oil, you just couldn't achieve the same amazing effect.

Just curious, chemically speaking,
Tom


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Tom,

Someone asked a similar question on another thread here. That was about producing big plumes of BLACK smoke. I agree it would look great, but as an older fan of steam engines AND one who has operated large ride-on live steam locos, lots of smoke was "frowned on" by the big wigs on the prototype roads. An efficient steamer and well fired loco would have a faint wisp of gray smoke. The heavy black smoke and plumes were for photogenic purposes only. You would get heavy smoke with a heavy load and steep grade when the fireman would really put some oil on the fire and really turn the atomizer up. With a coal fired loco, you would again get heavy, black smoke and large plumes with a load and steep grades. You will also get intermiate heavy smoke when a fresh scoop of coal is added to the fire and the grates are shaken. Smoke doesn't transfer real well to small scale. 

Good luck with your quest though.







Not a grump, just my .02.


----------



## cape cod Todd (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Tom 
I know what you mean about grumps but Relax. I too have seen posts and answers that seem to be mean spirited but usually the banter is back and forth between the grumps and Opinions are like Buttholes everyone has one. Don't hesitate to ask your question, you might not like the answer sometimes or how it is delivered but you do get an answer AND don't ever forget it is your RR and you can do what you want. A little secret some of those seemingly grouchy grumps that attack each other are actually friends. 
As for smoke I wondered the same thing. How neat would it be to have a huge plume of thick black smoke belching from our smoke stacks when our engines are laboring. The best smokers I have are USA trains with their fan driven units. The smoke gets blown out like 2 feet high, really cool except my steamers with their gentle wisps look silly next to them. I'm sure guys have experimented with diesel or used motor oil for smoke but what a mess it would make. 
Another thing most guys RR's are small and a fire breathing smoke producer would quickly stink up the yard not to mention indoor RR's. 
There was a guy on here that put a certain unit in his large steamer and posted a video about it. It sure kicked out alot of smoke. 
Why not experiment with making a fireproof smokebox for your particular loco and you could burn a real piece of coal in it? I have experimented with burning incense in my factory chimneys to get a little smoke going. 
It would be neat to achieve that black plume of noxious smoke. 
Good luck


----------



## Dick413 (Jan 7, 2008)

Tom 
i hope this works i think this is the one todd was talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Zb-1irobw


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

The Massoth smoke unit is the best I've seen for steam locos. It;s not black smoke but very prototypical. 

http://www.massoth.com/en/produkte/8412x01.en.php


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I have never seen any model which produced anything even close to a prototypical smoke plume. I suspect that a big part of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to put enough steam into the plume, unless you're talking about a live steam engine, and even then most do not have the soot component (because most burn alcohol or butane/propane). Also, with a few exceptions, most models do not blow the smoke out in puffs as on the prototype, since it's pretty difficult to move enough air without a decent sized piston, and that piston has to be powered somehow. 

Add to that the fact that you cannot really scale a cloud, and I don't know if it's even possible to make a prototypical plume. 

The best option for scale smoke, in my humble opinion, would be to have an electrically powered model with a pair of smoke generators. One would atomize oil as usual, the other would boil water. The two outputs would be combined, and the model's pistons would work as pumps to blow the smoke out of the stack. The valve gear could be along for the ride, since the pumps could use simple flap valves and a little leakage or blow-by wouldn't really matter. Of course, it's more complicated than just putting a smoke unit under the stack.


----------



## tommyheadleycox (Oct 15, 2010)

Wow, many thanks for the quick replies and impressive videos. and for the suggestion that I try a fireproof smoke box. i'm going to do that! Great idea. 
BTW, it suddenly struck me that one of the the things that prevents smoke from "scaling down" is WIND. Outdoors, even a small breeze can divert a G scale plume of smoke to un-prototypical-looking directions. The USA video was impressive, very realistic when it was travelling through the "forest." and it helped a lot that there was no breeze. The Massoth pulses were very realistic. 

Also appreciated - the note that black smoke was often for photogenic purposes only. This helps me put my desire for black smoke into perspective. Now that I think about it, even if I had the ability to produce very heavy black smoke, I probably would only go for max smoke only when i wanted to make a video or impress visitors. 

Thanks to all for excellent food for thought. 

Tom


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dick413 on 16 Nov 2012 01:13 PM 
Tom 
i hope this works i think this is the one todd was talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Zb-1irobw 

That is a great video and the smoke unit does a decent job of putting out volume of "smoke" but it shows the one thing that negates my desire to put a smoke unit in a model steamer outdoors. 
When the engine is heading into the wind, the smoke streams out behind the engine fairly protypically, but when it has a tail wind, the stream is out in front of the engine like it is going backwards.

The real world of 1:1 scale is always there. If the train is a 1:32 scale (or 1:29 if you must) and it is moving forward at a scale speed of 32 MPH (29 MPH) and then it is actually traveling at 1 MPH (either scale). So a "headwind" of 31 MPH (28 MPH) gives a realistic flow of smoke as if it were doing a scale 32 MPH (29 MPH), but if it is a "tailwind" then the smoke plume looks like the train is going backwards at 30 MPH (28 MPH)! It just never gets "real", regardless of the color of the plume.

I, too, wish I could get a black plume from my live steamers, but I have not found a way to do so, (without burning actual coal or wood), but that backward plume in a tailwind ruins the illusion anyway.

EDIT: I see you beat me to the "Submit" button with regard to the Wind.


----------



## tommyheadleycox (Oct 15, 2010)

I may have hit the submit button first regarding the wind, but you did the math which better explains it. After reading your post, and the post about stinking up the yard, and the post about "for photogenic purposes only" I'm thinking that I'd still like to give it a shot, but it wouldn't make sense to be constantly pouring jet black smoke out of my Märklin 1:32 steamers

But... it sure would be fun to do now and then for photo shoots and to put on one's web pages, or to enter a photo contest!

Tom


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

I use smoke and it does show better indoors. My best smoker has the Zimo decoder and the pro smoke unit which allows me to have 3 heater element settings (idle, run, heavy load) and it does puff with the chuff. 

Too much power to the heater element will burn it out real fast!!!


----------



## FlagstaffLGB (Jul 15, 2012)

Morning Tom, 

I had posted a similar question about research into "black" smoke and was given a long list of reasons why if the operation was to be prototypical, that the boiler stoker was probably not doing his/her job properly...the smoke is supposed to pour out white or near white. I have been trying to get someone with a background in fireworks to maybe shed some light into a combination of electrical current charge and chemical base for the effect. When I was a youngster and everyone wasn't as concerned about what kids would do with fireworks, I remember the ole "Black Snakes" and you got in a small cardboard box. You would light them and they produced heavy black smoke and a long growing tail of carbon that looked like a snake. Of course, that wouldn't be good for the scale engine photo op, but it was black smoke. I would think that if you had something like Dan's pro-smoike unit and could fill a separate pot with some oil that would produce black smoke, that at least for the initial "start up" of the steamer, it would be black. I'm still playing with this one on a work bench. Good luck and let me know if you find something. Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I stopped reading the first time









Is the question about getting prototype volume of smoke? If so, I would say that stock MTH locomotives already are capable of this, out of the box.

There are aftermarket units that also will produce even more smoke, like the Harbor Models unit.

With the fan assist, and the fact that it's heated, vaporized oil, I think it also looks pretty realistic.

Therefore, I believe you can get this particular aspect right now.

Greg
Posted By tommyheadleycox on 16 Nov 2012 11:11 AM 
Advance notice: The description of this beginner's forums says about askinq questions here: "Don't be shy or concerned that you will be ridiculed, it won't happen in this forum." Unfortunately, I've seen that exact same thing happen, folks ridiculed, usually by the same 2 or 3 members, over and over. So, if you don't really like answering beginners' questions, please: Stop reading now. Move on to another topic. Don't reply to me with a belittling comment. Just don't do it. Just pretend I didn't even post.
------------------------
My question is about smoke. I've always thought that the single most fascinating visual element of an operating steam locomotive is the dense, overwhelming thick column of smoke it puts out. It's just an amazing sight, the sheer volume of smoke being pumped high into the air. But I've never seen it duplicated in a large scale model locomotive, not even in the very expensive German dynamic units. 

I'm guessing that the laws of chemistry dictate that it can NOT be done and I wonder if there any chemists on the forum who would agree with me. Basically, I'm guessing that smoke -whatever kind you make - can not be scaled down to the sizes we use on our garden layouts. Even if you burned used motor oil, or wood smoke, or disel oil, you just couldn't achieve the same amazing effect.

Just curious, chemically speaking,
Tom


----------



## harvey (Dec 30, 2008)

Hello Tom,
Is this what you were thinking of, or is this a little bit of overkill?
I like it but even if I could replicate it I think I might hear it from the neighbours.










The photograph is from the Peter Cox collection and shows NAR engine #74. ( used with permission.)
Cheers.


----------



## tommyheadleycox (Oct 15, 2010)

Harvey, this is a GREAT photo of heavy smoke in action, and yes it's exactly what I was dreaming of. Notice how the smoke "hangs" in the air? Just stays there? That's what would be fun to achieve, at least to me. 

Ed, I seem to remember those black snake fireworks...... that was a long, long time ago, whew.... but that's a great idea about the separate reservoir for oil... 

You know, I'm narrowing in more and more on what it is that I'd really like to achieve and it's really just to able to generate that thick black smoke occasionally, when I want to, for video, youtube clips and photos. I finally figured out that the most nostalgic moments of all, surrounding steam locomotives from our memories, and westerns, is the start up! The slow chuff, the huge puffs of steam... ah , pure bliss. 
Imagine how cool it would be to post a video of your locomotive starting up that was so realistic, it would be like those old commericals, "Is it real or is it Memorex?" 
Ed, I'll be working on this on the work bench too. Many thanks all. 
Tom


----------



## tommyheadleycox (Oct 15, 2010)

I just realized that since I primarily want this for photo ops, the movie industry/ theatrical products avenue might be a good source for a product that would produce black smoke safely and without too much foul odor. And Greg, I agree that pretty realistic smoke units are available right now for white smoke. I'm just keen on the idea of seeing one of my trains "under heavy load" spewing black smoke and video taping it.

Tom


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Here is a video that shows copious amount of "smoke", unfortunately it is that "white"
stuff more properly known as water vapor, or fog.




These next two illustrate the problems of a 1:32 scale model in a 1:1 scale wind.
Unfortunately, these don't work too well to illustrate the problem, because I edited out
the really silly looking parts a long time ago to get a 'better' video!







Live Steaming in the rain is a barrel of fun for the visual, even if it leaves me a bit soggy.


----------



## tommyheadleycox (Oct 15, 2010)

That is indeed a copious amount of smoke. I've never seen a large engine put out that much. I see what you mean about the wind. I'll be trying this out on a calm day, once i get some homebrew black smoke mixed up. BTW - have you noticed that your Asters' smoke is more visible in certain weathers compared to others?

Thanks
Tom


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By tommyheadleycox on 18 Nov 2012 12:31 AM 
That is indeed a copious amount of smoke. I've never seen a large engine put out that much. I see what you mean about the wind. I'll be trying this out on a calm day, once i get some homebrew black smoke mixed up. BTW - have you noticed that your Asters' smoke is more visible in certain weathers compared to others?

Thanks
Tom 


Since that is NOT "smoke" but water vapor, (when alcohol burns one of the major products of combustion is H2O!) it always shows up best on high humidity (and windless) days. When the humidity is low, the vapor is absorb by the air quickly and sometimes cannot be seen at all beyond an inch (or less) from the stack, but when the humidity is high and the air is cool it sticks around for a marvelously LONG time! Running in a rain on a cool day is always the best visually, but can lead to evening chills and runny noses. If I were just outside on that kind of day, I'd be miserable, but watching the train removes all the misery and makes it as pleasant a day as one with sunshine and a gentle breeze.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ahh... black smoke. 

Well, vaporization of water or oil is out. 

The only thing I've seen make black smoke is real smoke, unburned material, leaving soot, i.e. carbon. 

A metal smokebox actually burning something, with a fan pulsed might do it, but heat, fuel, etc. would be an issue. You'd have to insulate it from the rest of the loco I would believe. 

I'd try coloring some oil and see what a "normal" smoke unit would do. 

Greg


----------



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

The best smoke I have seen (or smelled :-D) is from a coal fired live steam engine with a lite helping of bituminous (dirty) coal on top of the fire. I am guessing, large volumes of black smoke may need a lot of heat so a live coal fired steamer might be the only way to go for that. 
Problem is that it is very expensive (save ur pennys). (the other side effect is that people start to walk away or hack/cough a little bit, doh ) - make sure you click on the gear and select 720p for this one, the resolution gets a bit better


----------

