Smoke units

I've had no problems with any of my postwar liquid smoke units. Why not just add a fan to them?

If there was an easier/cheaper way than what's currently in use you can bet the manufactures would be using it.

This is something that has been in the back of my head for a while. We all know that water and electronics don't mix but if done properly, what about a water vapor generator. My nephew got this cheapo $25 train set from Wal-Mart that runs on AA Batteries and it claimed to generate puffs of smoke. I was rather impressed with what it was able to do with just a few drops of water in such a small package (S gauge sized) and a four AA batteries.

@H1000 posted:

what about a water vapor generator.

Have you ever looked inside a teakettle or water heater?

@John H posted:

Have you ever looked inside a teakettle or water heater?

I was thinking more along the lines of using ultrasonic vibration vs. heating the water.

I once asked ryan at lionel to look into the possibility of adding a magnetic removable  hatch above the smoke unit on diesel engines to make servicing the smoke unit easier.

this would also help in properly getting the smoke fluid into the units batting and down past the resitor when filling it.

steam engines are a whole nother ball game. due the the smoke unit placement.

he seemed to half listen and say he would consider it.

I told him the two biggest engine sevice issues are smoke units and traction tires. so this idea would at least make it less painfull when sevicing deisels.

My 2026 from when I was a kid was resurrected from the attic last year.  Wouldn't smoke.  Disassembled the smoke unit and cleaned out years of "wax".  Freed up the piston and added a spring (which it didn't have originally).  Now it puffs along like new and is ALWAYS ON.  The original nichrome wire is still working.  It even works with liquid smoke fluid as well as the old pellets.

But it isn't timed to audible chuffs and a fan doesn't blow it way n the air.  It just successfully stinks out the house (one of my favorite things).

John

@romiller49 posted:

Everybody wants new features crammed into these engines but why not invest in updating a problematic item that causes constant grief to the end user.

Rod,

With all due respect, and significant credit to an esteemed member of this forum:

   Nothing is so easy as the job you imagine someone else doing!

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Rod,

With all due respect, and significant credit to an esteemed member of this forum:

   Nothing is so easy as the job you imagine someone else doing!

Mike

Nothing ever gets done if creative minds don't ponder new ways to accomplish or improve upon something. The OP is asking the community for a different and/or better way to generate smoke. He's not asking for someone to do it for him but rather seeing if the technical minds here can put our heads together and see if we can do something different and/or better.

Look how long the BCR existed  before MTH integrated something like it into the PS3 board.

I know what you mean about pulling the boiler shell off. It is definatley intimidating. Push yourself-take chances. After you get used to it your going for a walk in the park. I re do all my smoke units once a year or so. I actually stock the parts for it. I take advantage of Lionel's half price on parts week. Not bad at all.You will be fine. Nick

@H1000 posted:

Nothing ever gets done if creative minds don't ponder new ways to accomplish or improve upon something. The OP is asking the community for a different and/or better way to generate smoke. He's not asking for someone to do it for him but rather seeing if the technical minds here can put our heads together and see if we can do something different and/or better.

OK.  Go back to nichrome wire elements and get rid of the off-on switch that involves stopping the engine when the (short lived) smoke runs out, turning it over, and shutting off the switch to keep the element from burning out.

John

@H1000 posted:

I was thinking more along the lines of using ultrasonic vibration vs. heating the water.

Same question.  Why do you think you regularly have to do a vinegar bath of an ultrasonic humidifier?  Hint, it's to remove the calcium deposits.

@Craftech posted:

OK.  Go back to nichrome wire elements and get rid of the off-on switch that involves stopping the engine when the (short lived) smoke runs out, turning it over, and shutting off the switch to keep the element from burning out.

John

Hard to say this is better. The smoke output is greatly reduced vs. a fan driven system. If you operate in a command environment, you don't need to turn anything off nor flip any switches.

The few PS1 engines still in my fleet can be turned off with out shutting down power or flipping the engine over.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Same question.  Why do you think you regularly have to do a vinegar bath of an ultrasonic humidifier?  Hint, it's to remove the calcium deposits.

Use better water, perhaps distilled. still cheaper than smoke fluid.

@H1000 posted:

Nothing ever gets done if creative minds don't ponder new ways to accomplish or improve upon something. The OP is asking the community for a different and/or better way to generate smoke. He's not asking for someone to do it for him but rather seeing if the technical minds here can put our heads together and see if we can do something different and/or better.

I couldn't agree more about creative minds, but he is asking someone else to do it for him -- and to do it for every last one of as well at the same time.

I'm actually very happy for his comments.  They definitely deserve to be restated and this thread deserves to be encouraged.  But, at the same time there will be no simple answer forthcoming, because it's been studied to death for years already and nothing has yet resulted.

To summarize, what I'm not saying is that there will never be a solution.  I'm just pointing out that the mountain is most definitely not simply a molehill in disguise.

So, have fun and go at it.  The best potential solutions will probably come out of left field.  This is because smoke unit problems will most likely need a revolutionary design, not simply a small modification, to resolve.  There's certainly no harm in trying and brainstormed suggestions are a good way turn on an 'Aha!' light bulb in someone's head.

Anybody for using a laser?

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Anybody for using a laser?

Mike

As long as we can attach them to the head of shark!

You could say that there is doing for someone else, and then there is the collective good which will benefit the OP, the creator(s) and the train community overall. If I or someone else undertake the task of building a better mouse trap for the benefit of someone who asked for it, I think I would share (or sell) the better mouse trap technology to anyone willing to build (or buy) it for themself.

This would be a great question for gunnrunnerjohn, of the various products he has designed and sold through Hennings, how many were requested by others, and how many did he make because he wanted something better for himself and then shared/sells those products for everyone else? Either way, they are being sold for everyone's benefit and John's modest profit.

At the end of the day, the OP wants something better for himself and everyone else also. His participation in the project will determine how much skin he has in the game. Someone has to start the conversation and present the problem, can we build a better smoke unit which kicks off the project. If that leads to something, then we can credit him for the initial question.

When we look at all the great advancements with electronics in our newer engines I would NOT put a new generation smoke unit on the back burner. Improvements are what engineers are paid to do. My heart goes out to new train enthusiasts that simply do not have the knowledge or tools to perform integrate maintenance such as needed on todays trains. I agree, the engines of the mid 80,s and early 90's are easy to take apart for repair but not the new stuff currently on the market.  We are blessed to have those on this forum that are always helping us to solve problems with other new electronic items. They don't see things as undoable so why shouldn't the manufacturers have the same attitude.

Rod,

Very well said.

Mike

@H1000 posted:

I was thinking more along the lines of using ultrasonic vibration vs. heating the water.

There's a maker of tabletop gaming accessories out there, RealGameFX, that has made steam/fog generators that use this.  While designed for static use hidden in scenery or ducted from off-scene, I've looked inside the ones I own and don't see how they couldn't be redesigned into something that fits into at least medium-sized engines.  You might not get VisionLine Big Boy levels of "smoke", but for a diesel or oil steamer it could pass.  I've even considered how one might be incorporated into a weed sprayer train, since the vapor takes ducting well and water is far better to wet trackside scenery with than smoke fluid. They say use tap water in it but I've used distilled to no ill effect.

The K-Line by Lionel SD-70 does have a hatch for the smoke unit.  It is not held on with magnets but sits very well on top of the diesel.  It is very easy to remove the smoke unit for maintenance.  I wish Lionel would go back to that format.

Marty

@Cheap&NothingWasted posted:

There's a maker of tabletop gaming accessories out there, RealGameFX, that has made steam/fog generators that use this.  While designed for static use hidden in scenery or ducted from off-scene, I've looked inside the ones I own and don't see how they couldn't be redesigned into something that fits into at least medium-sized engines.  You might not get VisionLine Big Boy levels of "smoke", but for a diesel or oil steamer it could pass.  I've even considered how one might be incorporated into a weed sprayer train, since the vapor takes ducting well and water is far better to wet trackside scenery with than smoke fluid. They say use tap water in it but I've used distilled to no ill effect.

I think that would be the draw back. In the case of ultrasonic vibration, you need more space and not necessarily more power like traditional fan driven smoke systems. I think it would be possible in situations where more space is available especially in track side accessories and rolling stock. If it one were to build it into a locomotive it would take a unique design to maximize the available space for the system.

May I ask how you guys are constantly blowing up smoke units? I've got 20 Premier steam/diesel locomotives, most with 1000s of scale miles on them, Lionel Legacy and TMCC steam with fan smoke units, have yet to change a smoke wick or blow up a resistor, and they all work fine. When I run them the locomotives get run for an hour minimum, usually 2-3 hours most times. I usually run smoke on the medium setting and just add fluid about every 15-20 minutes or so, when output goes down. I just stop the locomotive, switch the smoke of via the remote, add about 3/4 of a dropper of fluid (Mega Steam), blow down the stack, switch the smoke back on via the remote, and start running again for 15-20 minutes and the repeat the cycle.

It's not rocket science. If you're running smoke keep fluid in the unit and don't let it burn out. The wicks and resistors last years this way. Plus fans and impellers don't overheat. The smoke fluid is basically coolant for the unit.

As far as new tech for this it's not going to happen. The way the smoke units are designed now is the cheapest way to do it. This is a small market hobby. No manufacture is going to adapt ultrasonic tech to a smoke unit, it's far more expensive than a resistor and some electronics to run it. There's no way it makes sense economically for manufactures. So learn how to not break your current style smoke units guys .

@Cheap&NothingWasted posted:

There's a maker of tabletop gaming accessories out there, RealGameFX, that has made steam/fog generators that use this.  While designed for static use hidden in scenery or ducted from off-scene, I've looked inside the ones I own and don't see how they couldn't be redesigned into something that fits into at least medium-sized engines.  You might not get VisionLine Big Boy levels of "smoke", but for a diesel or oil steamer it could pass.  I've even considered how one might be incorporated into a weed sprayer train, since the vapor takes ducting well and water is far better to wet trackside scenery with than smoke fluid. They say use tap water in it but I've used distilled to no ill effect.

On the topic of water, coincidentally, Bill on the Hennings Trains youtube channel reviewed a STEM toy that simulates smoke using water this past Sunday. Not a one-to-one comparison, but you can see how fast condensation might build up.

I'm in no rush to pour water down the stack of my expensive steamers!

@TheRambles posted:

On the topic of water, coincidentally, Bill on the Hennings Trains youtube channel reviewed a STEM toy that simulates smoke using water this past Sunday. Not a one-to-one comparison, but you can see how fast condensation might build up.

Looks like the exact size element the Steam Pod uses.  Yeah, what goes up must come down, but distilled water will eventually evaporate (unless you live on the Gulf coast).

@Cheap&NothingWasted posted:

Looks like the exact size element the Steam Pod uses.  Yeah, what goes up must come down, but distilled water will eventually evaporate (unless you live on the Gulf coast).

It's an interesting idea. I am all for different options to emulate steam.

I would not want water.  There are too many opportunities for things to mess up the expensive electrical equipment inside the locomotive.

Marty

@Lou1985 posted:

May I ask how you guys are constantly blowing up smoke units?

It's not rocket science.

Isn't it funny.  I get the impression when reading through so many threads, unfortunately, that so many of us are considered complete idiots.  Here's another example.

It also looks to me like at least one person considers this entire thread to be waste of valuable time, which is another common observation across threads.

Does anyone have something more important to discuss so that we can end his misery?

Sorry Lou for being troublesome.  If the many, many, many of us who've had a problem had just read the blasted instructions we'd all be fine.

"There are no problems with existing smoke units", as Obi-Wan waves his hand and adds "These aren't the droids you're looking for."

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

"so many of us are considered complete idiots."

"waste of valuable time"

"end his misery?"

So negative, sheesh.

This is an online forum for toy trains. If you're worried about wasting time or impressing someone with your superior intellect, might I suggest looking somewhere other than this topic? No one is forcing you to read it.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Isn't it funny.  I get the impression when reading through so many threads, unfortunately, that so many of us are considered complete idiots.  Here's another example.

It also looks to me like at least one person considers this entire thread to be waste of valuable time, which is another common observation across threads.

Does anyone have something more important to discuss so that we can end his misery?

Sorry Lou for being troublesome.  If the many, many, many of us who've had a problem had just read the blasted instructions we'd all be fine.

"There are no problems with existing smoke units", as Obi-Wan waves his hand and adds "These aren't the droids you're looking for."

Mike

If you have a better, cheaper, alternative to the current smoke units using water vapor by all means bring it to model train manufacture's attention. Steel wheels + steel track (in tubular/Gargraves cases) + electronic components sounds like a not ideal environment to introduce water vapor into. May cause corrosion issues. Until those issues is resolved we'll all have to deal with resistor based smoke units using oil based fluid.

@Lou1985 posted:

May I ask how you guys are constantly blowing up smoke units? I've got 20 Premier steam/diesel locomotives, most with 1000s of scale miles on them, Lionel Legacy and TMCC steam with fan smoke units, have yet to change a smoke wick or blow up a resistor, and they all work fine. When I run them the locomotives get run for an hour minimum, usually 2-3 hours most times. I usually run smoke on the medium setting and just add fluid about every 15-20 minutes or so, when output goes down. I just stop the locomotive, switch the smoke of via the remote, add about 3/4 of a dropper of fluid (Mega Steam), blow down the stack, switch the smoke back on via the remote, and start running again for 15-20 minutes and the repeat the cycle.

It's not rocket science. If you're running smoke keep fluid in the unit and don't let it burn out. The wicks and resistors last years this way. Plus fans and impellers don't overheat. The smoke fluid is basically coolant for the unit.

As far as new tech for this it's not going to happen. The way the smoke units are designed now is the cheapest way to do it. This is a small market hobby. No manufacture is going to adapt ultrasonic tech to a smoke unit, it's far more expensive than a resistor and some electronics to run it. There's no way it makes sense economically for manufactures. So learn how to not break your current style smoke units guys .

I'm with you Lou.     I did burn some wicks early on but I started doing the proper procedure according to the MTH instructions and haven't had an issue since.

@Cheap&NothingWasted posted:

Looks like the exact size element the Steam Pod uses.  Yeah, what goes up must come down, but distilled water will eventually evaporate (unless you live on the Gulf coast).

.( unless you live on the Gulf coast ) ................

............or have a smaller layout room that gets moisture in the walls or in tight places where the black fuzzy stuff likes to grow

.............or don't mind having a large dehumidifier on HIGH all the time.

.............or don't have the need for electronic  or metallic equipment in the area.  🤔

I  DO  LIKE  THE IDEA OF  AN  EASY  ACCESS  HATCH  .......,for future locomotive purchases of course.  😁

Well Menards did it. Did they see my idea with Ultrasonic water vaporization?

Great! I will now look forward to abundance of future "rusted track" threads.

@H1000 posted:

Well Menards did it. Did they see my idea with Ultrasonic water vaporization?

Water vapor spilling from locomotives directly onto steel rails. Yeah, what could go wrong.

And look at the "steam" it goes up... and than straight down.

@Jim R. posted:

Water vapor spilling from locomotives directly onto steel rails. Yeah, what could go wrong.

Well pretty much all steel track has some level of corrosion resistant plating/coating applied to it. Bare steel would begin showing rust and corrosion pretty quickly. My second job is farming, we do work with some pretty corrosive chemicals at times and applying corrosion protection to steel or fresh welds is a must even when your work is only exposed to the most basic elements like high humidity.  

Not to mention, very basic track maintenance goes a long way. If you use a good non-polar track cleaner like CRC 3140 Clean & Protect, you track will last a long time with that little amount of water vapor entering your train room.

But you have inspired a new experiment about track corrosion resistance.