Building smoke?

[End2end]

Just out of interest has anyone tried adding smoke to a buildings chimney?
Thanks
End2end

[b308]

I know there's a couple of manufacturers who do kits which include s smoke generator. I've never tried them myself but from what I've seen they don't look very realistic. I suspect it's like using real water, it doesn't scale down very well.

[End2end]

I suspect it's like using real water, it doesn't scale down very well.

Hmm very interesting b308.
I've never heard that before, but I'm far from being a long time modellor so maybe just not come across it.

What about representations of smoke perhaps? Cotton wool on the end of a vertical shaft slowly turned by a motor?
Thanks
End2end

[luckymucklebackit]

I suppose some of the suggestions made here https://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=53111&hilit=smoke would be valid

Jim

[hicklingmick]

This type of thing ? https://www.conrad-electronic.co.uk/ce/ ... archDetail

[mjb1961]

Just out of interest has anyone tried adding smoke to a buildings chimney?
Thanks
End2end

Hi End2end,,,,,,been thinking about this and the brainwave I've had is ,,,using a seuthe generator,( the cheapest one ),,and a metal tube ( diameter wider/ bigger than the seuthe generator ) ,,,,drill a hole through the chimney,,attach the metal tube to the underneath of the hole ,,then make a stand to hold the generator which will enable the generator to be placed under the tube without touching each other ( should cure the heat melting problems ) ,,therefore in theory the smoke should travel up through the tube and out of the chimney ,,,,I would use a light oil such as the Dapol smoke oil for the black labels ,,,,,,what do you think. ?? Mjb

[b308]

The issue is getting the "smoke" to represent what you want it to. The smoke from the Seuthe units (and similar) give a rather "wispy" and "smooth" smoke whereas the stuff that comes out of chimneys in real life tends to be much more like the fluffy clouds in the sky which are very different, hence the reason I don't rate the units that are used. Other than burning real coal I'm not sure (at present) that there's a real solution!

[Ironduke]

I like the motorised cotton wool idea - it might not be very realistic but it would certainly be fun.

[luckymucklebackit]

Couple of observations on this, if it is for an exhibition layout in a large well ventilated hall then I would see it as a good feature, there was a layout* at Model Rail Scotland which featured a building fire which had "smoke" being emitted all weekend, if it is in a small room/shed/loft and the layout was not for exhibition I would not see the point apart from setting it up for some photographs (which could be photoshopped instead). Think the smoke would become a bit of an unpleasant nuisance after a while.

*https://www.glenrothesmrc.org.uk/cadham-bay/ - also in Railway Modeller, December 2017 – vol 68 No.806

Jim

[End2end]

The issue is getting the "smoke" to represent what you want it to. The smoke from the Seuthe units (and similar) give a rather "wispy" and "smooth" smoke

Now you mention it b308, I seem to recall such a chimney during a show and it was rather wispy and unrepresentitive.
I didn't ask the layout owner what it was that was making the smoke though.

Thanks to everyone for your help and replies. It's interesting to see what is available.

A lot of my buildings are made from plaster so not sure how the heat would interact with them but maybe (beliveable) smoke is a detail too far.
Thanks
End2end

[luckymucklebackit]

Photo of the layout I mentioned



Jim

[b308]

Perhaps that uses one of these:

http://www.gaugemaster.com/search_resul ... ntpage=1#5

[carnehan]

There’s an Australian guy on YouTube, Luke Towan, who has just uploaded a video on modelling a waterfall. As part of the scene he uses wadding teased out to represent the spray thrown up by the cascading waters. I can’t help but think that this method could be converted to represent smoke instead.

On the subject of generating real smoke my question would be why make this a moving element when everything else produced scenically round the railway is done in static form? If we can accept vehicles and people don’t move whilst trains do then it’s acceptable to have static smoke too.

Paul

[b308]

I know we are slightly OT but i hope E2E doesn't mind too much. When building Cliffhanger the builder had to incorporate a waterfall. What he did was model the falling water with a mist effect which help disguise the fact that the water wasn't real:

http://www.009.cd2.com/cliffhanger/waterfall.htm

[End2end]

On the subject of generating real smoke my question would be why make this a moving element when everything else produced scenically round the railway is done in static form? If we can accept vehicles and people don’t move whilst trains do then it’s acceptable to have static smoke too.

Thanks carnehan I'll check him out.
It's funny you should mention the above. I read years and years ago about placing, especially people, in situations where they wouldn't be moving.
The static conversation of stopped figures, the traffic jam or "incident", resting in the park feeding the birds and the such like.
Negating the apperance of movement and thus not having it all feel so static as it were.
This has stuck in my head which I'd like to replicate on my layout eventually.

b308 you be as OT as you like.
Shame the video is low quality but it does look good from what I can see.
Thanks
End2end