Aquatrain?

The following IS NOT recommended!

OK, I recently performed a test to see if these little locomotives could be cleaned in an ultrasonic jewelry cleaner without any damage to the motor. The answer appears to be yes, they can be cleaned in an ultrasonic cleaner without any damage.

But something was bugging me. Just a question in the back of my head…

Can the locomotive be run, while actually being under the cleaning solution???

I took a Marklin 8800 loco (the same one I used in the ultrasonic cleaner test), dropped it in the solution until it was covered, touched leads from a Marklin power supply on its highest setting to the wheels and presto… it ran. I have no idea if this caused any damage that I can’t see yet, and I didn’t run it long as the leads kept slipping off, but after rinsing and drying, the loco again tested out perfectly.

But there are a few important side notes here:

The jewelry cleaning solution contains ammonia. From what I’ve read, ammonia gas is slightly combustible. When I dipped the “powered on” leads into the solution they immediately caused tiny bubbling (which, when these bubbles came to the surface, released the same gases which are slightly combustible). One would assume then that it’s probably not a good idea to add electricity to this bubbling solution. But I had that darned question floating around in my head to answer so I plunged ahead. And anyway, ammonia itself isn’t combustible, and the sparks would have been under the solution and hence, under the gasses… but there were still those gas bubbles floating down there too, I should worry about, right???

Well, I’m still here… no explosion… and the only real (minor) damage I found was that where I touched the leads to the wheels it had built up a brownish film I had to clean off with an electric wheel cleaner (Micro-Trains Locomotive Driver Cleaner). And a chemist would know better, but I’m thinking the brown film was rust which immediately formed as the electricity sparked across the gap, just as a spark plug sparks as the electricity arcs across the gap. The “rust” was very easily removed, but I wonder if the same sort of thing happened to the armature under the brushes as the electricity arced? If it did, one couldn’t tell by how fine it ran afterwards.

Like I said, this is NOT recommended, and was only done to quench that burning question I had. But this only stirs another question that needs answering. We now know that a loco will run under this cleaning solution. We don't know how long it will run, but it will run. The cleaning solution is much like water, and so the loco should also run under water. Water, and metal, and the rust it would cause, is never a good combination… BUT what if a person could find a very, very thin oil or something else even better that would prevent rust and yet be non-flamable/combustible?

Could a loco run under oil? A whole layout under "water", so to speak? Charlie the Tuna’s very own train? Little sardines as passengers? Crabs as porters? Lobsters as conductors? A new endless realm of scenery to scale down to size.

Now if I could only get my hands on an aquarium and 20 gallons of very, very thin oil!

Zcratchman_Joe wrote:

Just a question in the back of my head…

I read this entire post, Joe... now I have a question in the back of my head. What other strange questions / ideas are floating around in that skull of yours?

Mad scientist FTW!!! Underwater trains who knew?

Zac

If anyone... ANYONE would know the answers, I knew it would be you Stony. I’ll assume Fluorinert is colorless. And I guess I wouldn’t need 20 gallons. Five gallons should work just fine; I’d just find a suitably low, waterproof, box. But still, that’s a $2,500.00+ experiment. I think I’ll leave it open for a club to pool their resources and do it… But donations are more than welcome. It sure would be a kick at a show, wouldn’t it?

No, don't get me wrong Stony. That's one of your qualities. And the same know-it-all thing happens to me all the time... (the fact that I know a bit, didn't help a couple of marriages either, but that's another story... although I can tell you that one wife used to call me Attorney Dr. Bob Villa Trebek - I know, kind of a mouthful, but she was well winded, trust me). But getting back to your comments, that is what a forum is for. In fact I was going to either research these findings, or simply ask you about my results before I published them, but I figured, if there was something important to say, you'd say it here, as you did.

Still in one piece,
Joe

Joe, in my oppinion Stony does know everthing. BUT NOT about those darn bolsters!!!!
LOL I dont know how many times ive had to help him with bolsters and how they work.
hehehehe
In all honesty, Stony is a great source of knowledge and has helped me alot so i trust what he told you in his post.
Good luck with your tests of under water running. I think you have become the "Mad scientist" of z scale. not sure that is a good thing

Steve aka "Slugger"

Zcratchman_Joe wrote:

... (the fact that I know a bit, didn't help a couple of marriages either, but that's another story...

I told you, Joe... which is a better return for your money... dog or wife?

TechRep wrote:

Zcratchman_Joe wrote:

... (the fact that I know a bit, didn't help a couple of marriages either, but that's another story...

I told you, Joe... which is a better return for your money... dog or wife?

Ummm, does your wife know you feel this way towards her?

Zcratchman_Joe wrote:

TechRep wrote:

Zcratchman_Joe wrote:

... (the fact that I know a bit, didn't help a couple of marriages either, but that's another story...

I told you, Joe... which is a better return for your money... dog or wife?

Ummm, does your wife know you feel this way towards her?

She earns her keep...