|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/1/2005
Posts: 1,417
Location: Wayne, NJ
|
I think this thread has set mathematics 1000 years. Nice work. 
- Andy
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/4/2006
Posts: 391
Location: Peru, Indiana
|
Hey it works! I weighed one of my HO (1/87 scale) locomotives. It weighed in at about 10oz. It is a NS C40-9 that weighs 410,000lbs in 1:1. Then I took 87x87x87=658,503. Took 410,000x16=6,560,000oz. 6,560,000/658,503=9.96oz!
Chris
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/1/2006
Posts: 4,065
Location: Dublin Ireland
|
Antho wrote:
Know, I'm laughing quite hard cause of Graham's theroy which is completely crazy in my opinion,
Who is crazy now Antho? hahahaha 
Why is "phonetically" spelt with a "ph"? ... It's better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all doubt The complex of Newgrange was originally built between c. 3100 and 2900 BC,[2] meaning that it's aproximately 5,000 years old. According to Carbon-14 dates,[3] it is more than 500 years older than the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, and predates Stonehenge by about 1,000 years.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2007
Posts: 2,774
Location: Sarasota, Florida, USA
|
Way to go Chris (thd56) now you got the idea. this works for all scales too!!!
Just remember the 1:1 weight HAS to be in ounces or grams which ever weight measure you use!!!
Then just cube the scale and then divide by the number!!!
1/48 = 48^3 or 48x48x48= 110592
1/50 = 50^3 or 50x50x50= 125000
1/87 = 87^3 or 87x87x87= 658,503
and so on, then divide the ounces or grams by these numbers!!
Dain
I'm a kid at heart, so I will play with any model construction vehicle from 1:87 scale to 1:1 scale!!!!
Age is a state of time NOT a state of mind!!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/1/2005
Posts: 1,417
Location: Wayne, NJ
|
1st of all, weight doesn't have 3 dimensions. It has 0 dimensions. Volume has 3 dimensions. Area has 2. Length has 1.
Now the concept of "Scaling down a weight" is actually a little odd. It's kind of comparing apples to oranges. Since the outside dimensions of out models are roughly to scale, the materials they are made of and what is on the inside are different. We're using plastic & die cast. We're not modeling every interior detail. There's no fuel in the fuel tanks, etc.
thd56, just because the numbers worked out on the example you tried certainly does not mean that this "theory" is correct. Lets say, for example, your locomotive is your typical ready to run HO locomotive. Some kind of metal frame, plastic body, some added weights. It weighs 10 oz. What if you have the same locomotive model made of brass & it weighs 18oz. Now the model is the same size, but the formula won't work.
Here's another example. In 1:87 scale I have both a Manitowoc 4100 with 180 feet of boom & a Link Belt LS-248H II with I think about 140ish feet of boom. The Manitowoc is made of styrene. The Link Belt is made of brass. In real life, the Manitowoc is the heavier machine. But in the model world, because of the materials, the Link Belt is much, much heavier. But, using your "formula" the Manitowoc should be heavier:
Manitowoc > LinkBelt
therefor
(Manitowoc Weight)/ 87^3 > (Link Belt Wright)/ 87^3
But the model Link Belt > Manitowoc.
- Andy
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 2,559
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
ok lol looks like it only sounded like it
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/1/2006
Posts: 4,065
Location: Dublin Ireland
|
andy,you're exactly right,unless the machine has been shrunk to 1/50 then the weight will be 1/125,000 of the real machine,my 1/50 ac500 weighs in at over 3700g where it should weight 768g
I would be thinking strength of these materials goes out the window when you scale them down,plus diecast has none of the properties of weldex or hardox or any other metal used in real machine,so alot more of the diecast material has to be used
what myself and Dain were working on was to find out exactly how small a 1/50 model is compared to a 1/1 and it turns out a long way away from 1/50
only with the likes of the counter weights does the weight scale down too,and thats just because the densities of the materials are similar
maybe its by chance some complete models work out weight wise when the weights are scaled down or with locos could the manufacturer purposely mean this as weight to a loco is quiet important to get a train moving
I was working on this just to see what the equivilant weights worked out to be like my mentioned ac500,
I thought about it many times before but never really sat down and banged it out on paper,so if you want to know what weight a real machine or load would be if shrunk to 1/50 is,then divide the 1/1 machine/load's weight by 125,000
Why is "phonetically" spelt with a "ph"?
... It's better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all doubt
The complex of Newgrange was originally built between c. 3100 and 2900 BC,[2] meaning that it's aproximately 5,000 years old. According to Carbon-14 dates,[3] it is more than 500 years older than the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, and predates Stonehenge by about 1,000 years.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2007
Posts: 2,774
Location: Sarasota, Florida, USA
|
At best the weights using Graham's and my formula are a "suggested weight" with all things given and materials used, after all that's what theories are, suggestions!
Just like the big oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, all the figures they are giving as to the oil that has leaked and is leaking are all theories as they don't really know for sure 100% how much is leaking by viewing the video OR how far it has spread by what is on the surface.
I have heard from other sources (not FOX) that the oil NOT seen is 5 time worse than what you DO see and it is already at the Florida Keys and possibly heading for the Atlantic side of the state!!!
Thanks to all the others here that found this thread as interesting as I have and keep refining the numbers at post what you've found!!!
Dain
I'm a kid at heart, so I will play with any model construction vehicle from 1:87 scale to 1:1 scale!!!!
Age is a state of time NOT a state of mind!!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/27/2008
Posts: 2,208
Location: in an igloo
|
This is stupid but I'll throw it out there.. Cu/ft Steel 490 lb's Cuft of soap flakes 10lbs 490 @ 1/50 is 9.8 or 1cuft of soap flakes A cube that is a 1/4 inch in dimension ,LOL,, would have to weigh 9.8lbs...Now we're's those Dilithium mine's??? 
Q-Ball a wolf in Jesus skin ---the sorcerer of reasonable commentary  I smile & wave Sometimes I think life is just a rodeo,
The trick is to ride and make it to the bell.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/1/2006
Posts: 4,065
Location: Dublin Ireland
|
you got me confused now big time lol
Why is "phonetically" spelt with a "ph"?
... It's better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all doubt
The complex of Newgrange was originally built between c. 3100 and 2900 BC,[2] meaning that it's aproximately 5,000 years old. According to Carbon-14 dates,[3] it is more than 500 years older than the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, and predates Stonehenge by about 1,000 years.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/26/2007
Posts: 1,706
Location: Australia
|
Quote:Hey it works! I weighed one of my HO (1/87 scale) locomotives. It weighed in at about 10oz. It is a NS C40-9 that weighs 410,000lbs in 1:1. Then I took 87x87x87=658,503. Took 410,000x16=6,560,000oz. 6,560,000/658,503=9.96oz! Was that with scale fuel, oil, water added also........ 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/27/2008
Posts: 2,208
Location: in an igloo
|
LOl I goofed..To really screw everything up????? 1cuft = 1728cu/in @ 1/50 34.56 cu/in steel 490lb/cuft or .284 lbs/cu in 34.56 x .284 = 9.82 lbs So maybe,somewhere in a galaxy far,far away ..a scale cubic foot of steel weighs 9.82lbs @ 1/50 The weight of steel dosent change ..remains constant ,cannot be scaled back regardless ..mass is mass.. 
Q-Ball a wolf in Jesus skin ---the sorcerer of reasonable commentary I smile & wave Sometimes I think life is just a rodeo,
The trick is to ride and make it to the bell.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/4/2006
Posts: 391
Location: Peru, Indiana
|
GC1 wrote:Quote:Hey it works! I weighed one of my HO (1/87 scale) locomotives. It weighed in at about 10oz. It is a NS C40-9 that weighs 410,000lbs in 1:1. Then I took 87x87x87=658,503. Took 410,000x16=6,560,000oz. 6,560,000/658,503=9.96oz! Was that with scale fuel, oil, water added also........ Yes It's only 390,500 with half variable supplies.
Chris
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 5,046
Location: B-town
|
gbarnewall wrote:andy,you're exactly right,unless the machine has been shrunk to 1/50 then the weight will be 1/125,000 of the real machine,my 1/50 ac500 weighs in at over 3700g where it should weight 768g
I would be thinking strength of these materials goes out the window when you scale them down,plus diecast has none of the properties of weldex or hardox or any other metal used in real machine,so alot more of the diecast material has to be used
Actually I think in some cases if not most, our 1/50 models are actually stronger (could carry greater weight or loads) than compared to a 'shrunken' down 1/1 machine. apm2754 wrote:1st of all, weight doesn't have 3 dimensions. It has 0 dimensions. Volume has 3 dimensions. Area has 2. Length has 1.
Now the concept of "Scaling down a weight" is actually a little odd. It's kind of comparing apples to oranges. Since the outside dimensions of out models are roughly to scale, the materials they are made of and what is on the inside are different. We're using plastic & die cast. We're not modeling every interior detail. There's no fuel in the fuel tanks, etc.
Agreed and it's not likely on the minds of those who make scale models. It's the dimensions that are focused upon. Interesting topic to ponder all the same!  Chris
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2007
Posts: 2,774
Location: Sarasota, Florida, USA
|
I think it would keep a "Vulcan mind" busy for days, LMAO!!!!!
There are infinite possibilities to this and as one is really close the idea was seeded.
Yes, most of the time the model manufacturers focus on the dimensional side of things and because of the use of plastic in a lot of models the weights would be significantly different.
But now we all have to remember that theories are nothing more than ideas that in most cases can or can't be proved!!
One person had a theory to scale a real machine down in size and that's how we got our models today!!
Also this shows me that there are STILL people with imaginations out there and are not afraid to use it!!!!
And not to forget AlvinB and his LEGOs!!!!
Dain
I'm a kid at heart, so I will play with any model construction vehicle from 1:87 scale to 1:1 scale!!!!
Age is a state of time NOT a state of mind!!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/26/2007
Posts: 1,706
Location: Australia
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/5/2006
Posts: 5,095
|
this just cracks me up. The first thing that pops into my mind is Leo Cat's dismay at norscot, and he upsettedly saying in one post " just take the f******g measurement and divide it by 50!!!" Now to me it is quite simple, say you have a 1:50 320D L, and you need to transport it, well simple! Just get any 30+ ton trailer!
MikesModels2011 on FacebookMikesModels2011 on YouTubeMikes Model Reviews ThreadMack Granite Project Thread
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/26/2007
Posts: 1,706
Location: Australia
|
The thread is interesting to say the least and raises an amazing amount of questions to perplex ones mind....for example, as Chris and Dain have pointed out....the scale model is basically a dimensional model and 3D on the dimensions outer measurements(and some important inner measurements).
The internal and thickness measurements are not given much consideration in making models except for the areas of moving parts. If the scale measurements were done on all parts of the model it would make the model so delicate we would not be able to touch it without crushing it....for example ..just imagine if all the panels were scaled down to 1/50 the thickness of all the body panels, the glass on the cabs, the wheel rims and all the metal in the models were scale thickness to 1/50 (they would all weigh a lot less also....now for those who have the LTM11200 ....weigh it as a 1/50 model and now extrapolate that weight to real size...does it weigh more or less than the actual thing. Probably more by a long way I would imagine without doing the math.
Take a 5kg model and scale it up...you don't just multiply it by 50 or it would only weigh 250kg...you multiply it by 50 then multiply the answer (250) by 50 ...etc...so something that weighs 250,000kg only has to be divided three times and it weighs 2kg scale wise.....doesn't work, does it?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/26/2007
Posts: 1,706
Location: Australia
|
D5...if you multiply the model 320D by 50 you can carry it the trunk of your car....3 or 4 lbs x 50...
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/1/2006
Posts: 4,065
Location: Dublin Ireland
|
it doesn't work when you take into consideration the build of the model,as was said every panel and piece of the model will be built to strenght and hense the ac500 weights over 3700g where if i had a shrink gun and set it to 1/50 and shrank an ac500 then that would weight 768g(due to every single piece being shrank to 1/125,000 of its original size)
now the only way I found this "working out weight" to be accurate is on 1/1 solid objects and the 1/50 counterparts of which are made solid too, I worked out the weight of 5 ac500 ballast stones in 1/1 they weigh 10tonnes each so in grams thats 50,000,000g for the 5 stones,dividing that by 125,000 is 400g so 80g each,now weighing the models weights they worked out at about 68g each,there is a small cavity on the underside also they will not be made of the same material as the real weights so densities and therefore real weights will not match 100%
once again that number 125000 is the ratio of the size of real 1/50 model (this could be anything,car,truck dozer block) to its 1/1 counterpart
its 50 times shorter in height,50 times narrower and 50 times shorter in lenght 50 X 50 X 50,and that gives 125,000,
so your 1/50 model is really 125,000 times smaller in volume,or space it takes up than the 1/1 counterpart
Why is "phonetically" spelt with a "ph"?
... It's better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all doubt
The complex of Newgrange was originally built between c. 3100 and 2900 BC,[2] meaning that it's aproximately 5,000 years old. According to Carbon-14 dates,[3] it is more than 500 years older than the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, and predates Stonehenge by about 1,000 years.
|
|
|
Guest |
