RR_Mel I don’t know about anybody else but a ±¼ volt difference doesn’t make any difference with any of my locomotives. If someone has a problem with a ½ volt drop there is a problem somewhere else. I use #20 solid wire homeruns to all of my blocks (some as long as 10’) and I’ve never had a voltage problem running dual one amp locomotives with sound and full passenger car lighting. I use both Atlas Nickel Silver code 83 and code 100 flex track on my current layout with unsoldered Walthers joiners, I have never had any electrical problems with any of my track or wiring in close to 30 years. Mel Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951 My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
That's reassuring and good to know.
I plan on not soldering my rail joiners and using wire feed joiners every other Flex track.
I also plan on using No Ox ID applied with a toothpick on every Joiner as a precautionary measure.
gregc 7j43k Nickel silver has a resistance 19 times higher than copper. And Code 83 has 64% of the cross section of #12 wire. So the resistance of a length of Code 83 will be 30.3 times that of the same length of #12 copper wire. 30.3 times the resistance! how does this compare to the thin gauge wires connecting the track to the decoder and the decoder to the motor? i'll guess that the decoder wire gauge is #28, 0.213 ohms/m = 0.0054 ohms/inch. At lease one estimate for nickle silver rail is 0.0014 ohm/inch. at 1Amp, NS track will drop 0.005V/in and the decoder wire 0.0015V/in. Consider the lengths of decoder wire and the lengths of track between the loco and the nearest feed.
7j43k Nickel silver has a resistance 19 times higher than copper. And Code 83 has 64% of the cross section of #12 wire. So the resistance of a length of Code 83 will be 30.3 times that of the same length of #12 copper wire. 30.3 times the resistance!
30.3 times the resistance!
how does this compare to the thin gauge wires connecting the track to the decoder and the decoder to the motor?
i'll guess that the decoder wire gauge is #28, 0.213 ohms/m = 0.0054 ohms/inch. At lease one estimate for nickle silver rail is 0.0014 ohm/inch.
at 1Amp, NS track will drop 0.005V/in and the decoder wire 0.0015V/in. Consider the lengths of decoder wire and the lengths of track between the loco and the nearest feed.
I get Code 83 nickel silver rail being .0048 ohms/inch. I believe the .0014 is incorrect. My information comes from the Chemical Rubber Handbook and the National Electrical Code. The only self generated number is the cross-sectional area of Code 83 rail. Since the cross-section is a complex shape, I chose to multiply the width of the head times the height of the rail (Shinohara/Walthers), as it is a close approximation.
Double darn. I went back and checked my numbers again. I made an error in the cross-section work. I will go back through my posts above and correct it.
Since I did make a mistake, I feel that I should show my calculations for inspection below:
From Chem Rubber Handbook--Resistivity of copper: 1.7 microhm-cm. Resistivity of nickel silver: 33 microhm-cm.
33/1.7= 19.4 Thus nickel silver is 19.4 times the resistance of copper.
As I said, I felt that the cross-sectional area of Code 83 could be represented by multiplying the head width by the height (essentially folding the rail base up under the rail head)
.039" x .083" = .0032 sq in
From NEC: cross-sectional area of #12 solid = .005 sq in
.0032/.005 = 64%
The cross-section of Code 83 rail is 64% of #12 solid.
19.4 / .64 = 30.3 Code 83 rail has 30.3 times the resistance of #12 solid copper wire.
From the NEC: solid copper wire has a resistance of .00193 ohm per foot
Thus Code 83 has 30.3 x .00193 = .058 ohm per foot
Code 83 rail has .0048 ohm per inch
Code 83 rail has .174 ohm per 36"
STILL LATER:
I'm still bothered by both Greg (earlier) and Mel (later) coming up with a resistance of approximately .0015 ohm per inch, while I get .0048--approximately 3 times higher. On consideration, I believe that the alloy used in nickel silver rail has less nickel than the alloy I was using for my calculations*. Less nickel means more copper and/or zinc, both of which are much more conductive than nickel.
* copper 60%, zinc 25%, nickel 14%
Ed
7j43k BMMECNYC 7j43k Nickel silver has a resistance 19 times higher than copper. And Code 83 has 40% of the cross section of #12 wire. So the resistance of a length of Code 83 will be 47 times that of the same length of #12 copper wire. 47 times the resistance! Code 83 rail resistance=.6 ohms (including resistance of multivolt meter leads). That would be for a 3' piece. I get .27 ohm per 3'. Which is pretty close. And #12 copper is 1.93 ohms for 1000 feet. Ed
BMMECNYC 7j43k Nickel silver has a resistance 19 times higher than copper. And Code 83 has 40% of the cross section of #12 wire. So the resistance of a length of Code 83 will be 47 times that of the same length of #12 copper wire. 47 times the resistance! Code 83 rail resistance=.6 ohms (including resistance of multivolt meter leads).
7j43k Nickel silver has a resistance 19 times higher than copper. And Code 83 has 40% of the cross section of #12 wire. So the resistance of a length of Code 83 will be 47 times that of the same length of #12 copper wire. 47 times the resistance!
Code 83 rail resistance=.6 ohms (including resistance of multivolt meter leads).
That would be for a 3' piece. I get .27 ohm per 3'. Which is pretty close.
And #12 copper is 1.93 ohms for 1000 feet.
Yes, it was a 3' piece (or as near 3' as I could get). .016 ohms per inch.
7j43k Double darn. I went back and checked my numbers again. I made an error in the cross-section work. I will go back through my posts above and correct it. Ed
That's okay Ed as Billy Joel says "we're only human, we're supposed to make mistakes".
From past experience I can tell you though. When I get a little too cocky it occasionally does bite me in the derriere. Ha ha.
7j43k ATLANTIC CENTRAL I use 13.8 volt regulated power supplies with Aristo Train Engineer throttles. My actual output voltage at the Aristo is about 13.6, and I have never read less than 13.5 anywhere on the layout...... That 13.5 reading is only valid if there was a train running at that location at the same time. And I picked #12 because so many people use #14, #12, or #10 for their power bus. As opposed to #18, say. Ed
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I use 13.8 volt regulated power supplies with Aristo Train Engineer throttles. My actual output voltage at the Aristo is about 13.6, and I have never read less than 13.5 anywhere on the layout......
I use 13.8 volt regulated power supplies with Aristo Train Engineer throttles. My actual output voltage at the Aristo is about 13.6, and I have never read less than 13.5 anywhere on the layout......
That 13.5 reading is only valid if there was a train running at that location at the same time.
And I picked #12 because so many people use #14, #12, or #10 for their power bus. As opposed to #18, say.
Yes, that is the voltage with a load.
And, I do have a power bus because of my Advanced Cab Control system, and it is #12 wire. But the local feeders from the relay boards to the track are much smaller, #18.
Power runs from the four mainline throttles around the layout to a relay board for each mainline track section (think ever other signal block). Those relay boards are locally mounted and the feeders run through inductive detectors befor going to the track.
Signal blocks such as interlockings are slaved to the ajoining blocks and automaticly power routed by turnout position.
Other trackage areas (yards, industrial areas) have their own throttles and power supplies as well as being able to be connected to mainline throttles.
The dispatcher aligns routes and assigns cabs to blocks, or it can be done locally as you walk with your train at local tower panels.
Sheldon
dstarr ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well Ed, we don't have loads that require #12 wire..... Sheldon No body does. The reason for using house wire, #12 or #14 is that it is mechanically rugged. It won't break just cause someone working under the layout bumps into it. You don't have to worry about a nick from the wire stripper weakening the stuff. You can strip short sections to wrap a feeder around the bus wire and solder it and it will stay. And the stuff is easy to come by. Home Despot or Lowes carries it, you can often get used wire pulled out during a home remodeling job for the asking.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well Ed, we don't have loads that require #12 wire..... Sheldon
Well Ed, we don't have loads that require #12 wire.....
No body does. The reason for using house wire, #12 or #14 is that it is mechanically rugged. It won't break just cause someone working under the layout bumps into it. You don't have to worry about a nick from the wire stripper weakening the stuff. You can strip short sections to wrap a feeder around the bus wire and solder it and it will stay. And the stuff is easy to come by. Home Despot or Lowes carries it, you can often get used wire pulled out during a home remodeling job for the asking.
Well, I don't use DCC, and don't have "that kind" of power bus, but I do have a power bus for each throttle. But I would never use ROMEX or other building wire for this sort of wiring.
I use neatly cabled and supported stranded wire and don't have open splices with wires willy nilly under the layout........My resume includes Electrician, Electrical Control System Designer, Electrical Design Draftsman.......
ROBERT PETRICKAs for using actual silver in the rails . . . it is not as ridiculous as it sounds,
Pikers Go gold or Go Home.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
BMMECNYC rrinker It's not that DCC is more finicky, it's that the voltage on the rails in DC directly controls the speed, so if there is a slow and gradual voltage drop, you don't see it and/or automatically compensate by turning the speed control up a bit. I ran an 8x12 double track layout with DCC on one pair of feeders as well, no problems. Hooking up all the rest of the feeder drops didn't change things, either. There's nothing more finickey about DCC, as long as the voltage remains above the specified minimum there should not be any control issue - and it takes a LOT of nickle silver rail and/or a huge load of powered equipment to cause the voltage to drop from the nominal output at the main booster to a level below the NMRA specifications. At the same time, I had a basic 4x8 oval of Bachmann EZ Track running on DC and the locos noticeably slowed at the furthest point from the power pack. I had to add extra feeders to fix this. Being sectional track, thre were more joints in this 4x8 oval then there were in the 8x12. This is the real cause of issues over long track runs with few feeders. That 8x12 also ran in a basement with open ceiling joists and unfinished poured concrete walls and floor. Outside of cleanup after painting the rails, I didn't clean the track on that one, either. Just a light brushing to remove loose dust on occasion. No liquids, no abrasives. I still contend that anything that STAYS wet on the rails only makes it worse. --Randy Did a quarter trip the DCC circuit breaker prior to adding additional feeders?
rrinker It's not that DCC is more finicky, it's that the voltage on the rails in DC directly controls the speed, so if there is a slow and gradual voltage drop, you don't see it and/or automatically compensate by turning the speed control up a bit. I ran an 8x12 double track layout with DCC on one pair of feeders as well, no problems. Hooking up all the rest of the feeder drops didn't change things, either. There's nothing more finickey about DCC, as long as the voltage remains above the specified minimum there should not be any control issue - and it takes a LOT of nickle silver rail and/or a huge load of powered equipment to cause the voltage to drop from the nominal output at the main booster to a level below the NMRA specifications. At the same time, I had a basic 4x8 oval of Bachmann EZ Track running on DC and the locos noticeably slowed at the furthest point from the power pack. I had to add extra feeders to fix this. Being sectional track, thre were more joints in this 4x8 oval then there were in the 8x12. This is the real cause of issues over long track runs with few feeders. That 8x12 also ran in a basement with open ceiling joists and unfinished poured concrete walls and floor. Outside of cleanup after painting the rails, I didn't clean the track on that one, either. Just a light brushing to remove loose dust on occasion. No liquids, no abrasives. I still contend that anything that STAYS wet on the rails only makes it worse. --Randy
It's not that DCC is more finicky, it's that the voltage on the rails in DC directly controls the speed, so if there is a slow and gradual voltage drop, you don't see it and/or automatically compensate by turning the speed control up a bit. I ran an 8x12 double track layout with DCC on one pair of feeders as well, no problems. Hooking up all the rest of the feeder drops didn't change things, either. There's nothing more finickey about DCC, as long as the voltage remains above the specified minimum there should not be any control issue - and it takes a LOT of nickle silver rail and/or a huge load of powered equipment to cause the voltage to drop from the nominal output at the main booster to a level below the NMRA specifications.
At the same time, I had a basic 4x8 oval of Bachmann EZ Track running on DC and the locos noticeably slowed at the furthest point from the power pack. I had to add extra feeders to fix this. Being sectional track, thre were more joints in this 4x8 oval then there were in the 8x12. This is the real cause of issues over long track runs with few feeders.
That 8x12 also ran in a basement with open ceiling joists and unfinished poured concrete walls and floor. Outside of cleanup after painting the rails, I didn't clean the track on that one, either. Just a light brushing to remove loose dust on occasion. No liquids, no abrasives. I still contend that anything that STAYS wet on the rails only makes it worse.
--Randy
Did a quarter trip the DCC circuit breaker prior to adding additional feeders?
Yes, it did. Most of my joints were soldered. Only turnouts were not soldered in place.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
One thing you have to remember (and check) is that many of these wiring sites that list x voltage drop for a given size wire are assuming the full 5 amps of you power supply is being delivered to the spot at some distance from the source. That's all well and good if you are running a multi-motor large scale beast, or have 10 parallel tracks all loaded with locos pulling from the same power bus. With the exception of that P2K mistake E unit with the high current motor, the days of HO locos drawing huge currents are long over. Even the gold Athearn Blue Box motors don't draw a full amp in normal operation. The free running current, even with a decent train, of most locos is well below their stall current. Even going extreme and saying 1/2 amp per loco (considering I was able to have 12 locos going at once with my Zephyr, which is rated at 2.5 amps, 1/2 amp per loco is even high), that's 1/10 the 5 amp output of the typical booster. So if the calculated voltage drop is even 5 volts at 5 amps, that's only 1/2 a volt at 1/2 amp.
What a given size wire can handle in house wiring is completely meaningless for the purposes of model railroading. Sure, #12 wire is used on 20 amp circuits. But at what voltage? Household circuits in the US are 120V RMS. That's nearly 170 volts peak. So say there is a loss in the run of 10 volts. Now you have 160 volts peak. Which is still 113V RMS. Not such a big deal after all. Which is why it works. #12 can handle a 20 amp load without heating up so much that it melts the insulation or sets your house on fire. But if we wire up something on the model railroad that starts with a nominal 15 volts, typical DCC voltage for HO, and introduce a wiring length and size that results in a 10 volt drop - now we only have 5 volts left, of COURSE that will be noticeable. The DROP is the same - Ohm's Law, E=IR, the only factors in the number of volts dropped int he wire are the resistence per length, the total length, and the current drawn. So draw 20 amps over 100 foot of wire and the total voltage loss will be the same regardless if you started with 120 volts or 15 volts. Now it's generally bad form to feed the full 5 amps to one section of track, and if there were such a thing as a 20 amp booster, it would be even MORE bad to just connect that directly to the rails. OK, so we now reduced out drop to 1/4 of what is was, so instead of losing 10 volts, now it's 2.5 volts. Still noticeable. But wait, our loco doesn't draw 5 amps, it draws .5 amps, 1/10 of that. So now our REAL drop is .25 volts. Not noticeable.
It isn's just the benchwork that a lot of people overbuild... ANd given that all the popular DCC systems allow for distributing the boosters around a large layout to keep the bus wire lengths down - there is little need for huge wire sizes. That does not mean using telephone wire for the bus - though if you only ever run one loco at a time I'll bet it would work fine, but neither do you need massive #10 wire. I only use #12 because when I last bought wire, the #12 was effectively the sme price as #14, so why not? Given that bus runs will be short, if there is a significant difference in cost I will certainly use #14 as bus runs will be kept minimalized with distributed boosters. And distributed block detection with current transformers - no centralized diode drop detectors with wires running out inder the layout for each block.
RR_Mel Because my Fluke only reads out to down to 1/10 of a ohm I used one Atlas code 83 rail as a go by and made some measurements. I adjusted the voltage until It was drawing 1 amp across a single rail, the voltage measured .610 volts. Voltage .610 V ÷ Current 1 Amp = Resistance 0.610 Ω for 36 inches of code 83 Nickel silver rail. Mel Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951 My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Hey good idea, two of my Flukes do nanosiemens. Problem is, when getting into small units, the resistence of the probe wires becomes a significant factor. I do have one meter with 4 wire measurement so it can cancel out the loss in the probes. I should try that. Maybe compare Atlas 83 to peco 83. And even better - 2 sections, one set with the joiners just slid on and one set with the joints soldered.
Edit: that seems way high, actually. That would be 1.2 ohms per 3 foot section of track (if one rail is .6 ohms). At 1 amp, that's 1.2 volts lost in the track. With 6 sections of flex (assuming soldered joints), just 18 feet worth of track, you'd have 7.2 volts drop. Not possible it's that high., trains would never run. I doubt my program track would work (2 lengths of flex track with the wires soldered at one end). Even my test track which is made up of pieces of sectional track (joints soldered) is nearly 3 feet long and I cna program a decoder no matter where I put it on that track, near where the feed wires attach, or all the way down at the other end. I'd say the numbers are at LEAST 10x too high.
rrinker Edit: that seems way high, actually. That would be 1.2 ohms per 3 foot section of track (if one rail is .6 ohms). At 1 amp, that's 1.2 volts lost in the track. With 6 sections of flex (assuming soldered joints), just 18 feet worth of track, you'd have 7.2 volts drop. Not possible it's that high., trains would never run. I doubt my program track would work (2 lengths of flex track with the wires soldered at one end). Even my test track which is made up of pieces of sectional track (joints soldered) is nearly 3 feet long and I cna program a decoder no matter where I put it on that track, near where the feed wires attach, or all the way down at the other end. I'd say the numbers are at LEAST 10x too high. --Randy
Sir Madog Aluminum alloy track is already available for garden railways, but aluminum also corrodes, even disintegrates, has a bad conductivity and cannot be soldered.
Aluminum alloy track is already available for garden railways, but aluminum also corrodes, even disintegrates, has a bad conductivity and cannot be soldered.
I worked in the aluminum industry for 35 years and I would say that your statement has a few mistakes in it.
Yes, certain alloys of aluminum will corrode. But there are a lot that do not. Corrugated aluminum roofing and siding has no coating on it and last for 50 years or more. It is not used as much because there are cheaper alternatives.
Aluminums conductivity is #4 on most list, just behind gold. It has many uses in the electrical industry. It is used as the sevice entrance cable on most buildings. It is used for high voltage transmission including the cables on the huge towers that run from power plants to the substations. The 4000V feeders that supply the transformer in front of my house are aluminim. At one time it was used for house wiring. But, because of it's lack of 'springiness' the connections on recepticles would loosen over time and could cause a fire.
And, yes aluminum can be soldered.
7j43kWayne, Are you saying that there is only one supply point on the track to supply 200'? And are you saying that you have run more than a dozen locomotives AT ONCE? Ed
Yes, although the dozen locos operation was usually for my grandkids: I'd start with one loco, and they'd begin to follow it around the room. As it moved around the layout, I'd add another behind it, and continue doing so until I ran out of locomotives. During this game, some would catch up with others, and I'd then begin removing locos as they came by, until only one was left, and we'd park it and end the "operating session".
I do, however, run most trains with multiple locomotives, due to the ever-present 2.5% grades. That has included trains in excess of 70 cars and others with trailing weights in excess of 22lbs...these were usually test trains for locomotive capabilities, track and equipment reliability, and train handling.All rail joints are soldered, and I then cut gaps where necessary to allow sections of the mainline or passing sidings to be isolated by use of toggle switches on the layout fascia. Since I'm the only operator, this allows me to run multiple trains sequentially (one at a time), although I've not fully developed an operating scheme.Currently, most trains "work" each of the towns through which they pass, and an operating session might include only a single town, with the trip to be continued next time. That next session might include a through train passing in either direction before the original train resumes its journey.
I never bothered to get into the minutiae of electrical theory, so the layout is common rail pretty-much right out of the Atlas book. The wiring is very basic and easy for me to understand, and it works, which is all I require of it. Power is supplied by an MRC ControlMaster 20, with train control through a 3 amp PWM throttle from Stapleton Electronics.
Wayne
With all the measuring of ohms and voltage drop of a section of rail, how do you know what the alloy is? The ratios between the copper, nickel, and zinc could be all over the place. With todays high copper prices there might be less of it per foot than just a few years ago. And if the rail was made in china, who knows what the quality is.
Bottom line is nickel silver is still used because it is the cheapest to manufacture. It always comes down to profit margins.
SeeYou190Why do we not have a better, and more expensive, option to choose from?
A lot of paralysis by analysis going on here.
The question should be why don't we have a better, less expensive option to choose from?
maxman SeeYou190 Why do we not have a better, and more expensive, option to choose from? A lot of paralysis by analysis going on here. The question should be why don't we have a better, less expensive option to choose from?
SeeYou190 Why do we not have a better, and more expensive, option to choose from?
It's a compromize. Maybe it's because nickel silver is actually the best material: considering manufacturing concerns, durability, corroson resistance, conductivity and cost.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm hopeful that "deadrail" will be the ultimate solution to track material in a few years. That way, we can use whatever we want and never clean track for electrical purposes again. Battery tech has a way to go, however, before some of this is realistically done in the smaller scales.
Greg Shindledecker Modeling the =WM= Thomas Sub in the mid-70s
SouthPenn With all the measuring of ohms and voltage drop of a section of rail, how do you know what the alloy is? The ratios between the copper, nickel, and zinc could be all over the place. With todays high copper prices there might be less of it per foot than just a few years ago. And if the rail was made in china, who knows what the quality is. Bottom line is nickel silver is still used because it is the cheapest to manufacture. It always comes down to profit margins.
I speculated on the alloy content in an ealier post. It would appear that rail's nickel content is lower than what appears to be the common alloy ratio I used. I suspect nickel costs more than copper. On the other hand, it might be as simple as choosing an alloy that does the paticular job better; and that alloy has less nickel. And MORE copper.
Anyway, whichever alloy ratio is used, resistance of nickel silver is dramatically higher than brass or copper. But there are people here who argue it is still not high enough to be a problem. AND. If you DO feel it is, it has been spread around for years that you should have multiple taps and copper feeder distribution to solve the problem--a route I took.
Either way, the resistance of nickel silver rail is only a problem if the modeler makes it one.
This has been a fun and interesting thread.
I do think Mike sumed things up early on in his statements.
There are two factors that contribute to having to clean your track. Don't confuse the two I believe is what he basically said.
Corrosion/Air Contaminants
I do not think nickel silver corrodes quickly enough to be the root of the track cleaning problem.
Even if you had pure sterling silver for a rail. Look at an old teapot or coin that is silver and has a brownish black tarnish all over it.
Definitely keeps Tarn-X in business.
You can somewhat minimize one aspect of the equation with a quality alloy. I do believe they achieved this in the 70s with nickel silver rail.
Air contaminants will always be there but also can be somewhat reduced.
This must be the main factor that determines how often you have to clean your track.
Back to Black gunk again. Lol
Edit. That kind of raised a question in my head.
Is the brownish black tarnish on Silver corrosion, black Gunk, or both?
And hats off to the bear that one is his!
gshin I'm hopeful that "deadrail" will be the ultimate solution to track material in a few years. That way, we can use whatever we want and never clean track for electrical purposes again. Battery tech has a way to go, however, before some of this is realistically done in the smaller scales.
Except for signaling systems where you need detection circuits. And then there's the issue of charging/changing the batteries. And that's assuming you can get batteries small enough and strong enough, otherwise you have one or more dedicated boxcars, baggage cars, etc. behind the locomotive.
All that said, you can still do it now. You just may need to make a few compromises.
Paul
WHy don;t we have a better, cheaper alternative? Because model railroading is such a small niche that ther is no profit in R&D for that sort of thing. I doubt there is a huge profit margin ont eh track now, if it were that much cheaper to make soemthign different, it's unlikely the end user would see much of any price decrease. But finding a cheaper allow with a better set of compromises (no matter what you pick, there will always be compromises - be it electrical conductivity, bendability, or easy of manufacturing) means paying someone to test this stuff out, and I just don't see that happening. You aren't going to get people to rip up their layouts and replace all the track - after all these years of nickel silver, there are still people using brass. Any R&D money in model railroading is most certainly going to higher profit margin parts of the business.
Track fiddler Edit. That kind of raised a question in my head. Is the brownish black tarnish on Silver corrosion, black Gunk, or both?
Tarnish on sterling silver is oxidation and/or sulfidation of the copper (7.5%) that is in it.
Pure silver is also somewhat reactive, though nowhere near copper. As noted, though, it's a fantastic electrical condutor. Perhaps the ideal material for model railroad rail would be platinum, which is essentially non-reactive. Of course, the rail would still get dirty and need cleaning. Oh darn.
Of course, some of you nay-sayers are tempted to reject platinum, thinking it is too soft. But pure platinum has the same hardness as sterling silver. So consider spending the extra few dollars for the clearly superior rail: Code 83 Platinum!
7j43k So consider spending the extra few dollars for the clearly superior rail: Code 83 Platinum! Ed
So consider spending the extra few dollars for the clearly superior rail: Code 83 Platinum!
That's a good one Ed.
They could sell it at the Goodman Jewelers track Supply.
One could take out special financing for thier track plan. And no ring for the wife. Lol
One other thing about Code 83 Platinum: the electrical resistance is about the same as nickel silver (nowhere near real silver).
So, if you feel the need for multiple rail feeds for nickel silver rail, the same will hold true for Code 83 Platinum.
For most of us, that's not a deal-breaker.
Oh, yeah. It takes soft solder nicely, making it superior to difficult metals like aluminum and stainless.
For those of you on a budget, I would suggest first using Code 83 Platinum in hard to reach areas, like tunnels.
Track fiddler 7j43k So consider spending the extra few dollars for the clearly superior rail: Code 83 Platinum! Ed That's a good one Ed. They could sell it at the Goodman Jewelers track Supply. One could take out special financing for thier track plan. And no ring for the wife. Lol
My eldest Son (47) is a Metallurgist who for the past 20yrs. is a buyer and seller of precious metals. Not too long ago.....like the past 5yrs. Platinum was worth more than Gold, by a fairly large margin. Believe it or not, where He got most of it from was Automotive catalytic converters which He bought in lots of thousands of pounds...had the Platinum extracted and resold it for a pretty hefty profit as is all the precious metals He handles. The interesting part is...He never touches any of it......just buys and sells it.
Another interesting note: Is the fact that His wife and Him can't have Children, but they wanted them so they adopted new born babies. They have 4 adopted children, 1 girl and 3 boys which are in their teens now. A new born adopted baby from an Orphange is roughly 28,000 dollars with a long waiting list and You are totally screened for a year prior to even getting on any prospective parent list.
Just thought I would throw that in...for everyone saying there has to be a cheaper better way for toy track........a better way.....bio clean room, with no outside oxygen. Mike said it in the beginning.........
Take Care!
Frank
That's why there is a brisk business in stealing catalytic converters from cars - the platinum and palladium found within are worth a significant amount of money.
Huh. Can some one please explain to me why Platinum is needed and what its purpose is for in a catalytic converter.