Ace-Garageguy

Somebody above mentioned a soft makeup brush. Yup. And gently blow on 'em as you brush. EDIT: If you happen to use weathering powders, chalks, etc., a set of makeup brushes of varying width and stiffness is ideal.

I started turning one into a much more accurate '38 (the Revell '"38" gets everything but the grille wrong) :

LOOKS PERFECT!

Mt favorite stateside-available-in-a-jar Vietnamese-style Tuong Ot Toi chili-garlic sauce, now in stock at the local market. Joy of joys.

This is definitely a better way to get one of these down in the weeds than doing a radical channel job. More of the headroom remains, so the little 1/25 scale munchkins can drive more comfortably.

Like 'em. Lots.

Wow. Check out the velvet still on his antlers. Great photo.

I met the guy who built the little Merc, Ernie Adams, back in 2011 or so, just after he pulled into a parking slot at Oatman, Az., on the Rt.66 Fun Run that year. I'd seen the car earlier, parked in Kingman, was blown away by the quality of the craftsmanship, but he wasn't around. Seeing him unfold himself from the baby Merc, I had to talk to him. He's a wizard, no doubt about it.

Hey...thanks for the plug.

Well sir, without a very thorough reading and analysis of the primary-source published and dated work of both Tesla and Ferraris (as opposed to going by secondary sources), which nobody is going to pay me to do anytime soon...though I might very well do for my own amusement after I retire...I'll be content to accept that Tesla had at least some original thought regarding the phenomenon of an induced magnetic field being capable of causing mechanical motion. I have found over the decades that secondary and "interpretive" sources very often misunderstand, misinterpret, misrepresent, or just get technical concepts completely wrong, and ever afterwards, misinformation gets rebleated as fact. In particular I'm generally suspicious of anything related as "fact" by Wikipee. Inaccuracies there...and outright lies...are legion, often due to blatantly obvious bias on the part of the author(s). Researching the history of various other technologies, I have found, for an unrelated example, disagreements between primary sources from the late 1920s through about '31-'32 and published so-called "authoritative" information, much repeated, regarding various particulars of the Supermarine S6B. Just sayin', as they say. EDIT: And, as I personally have had ideas in a relative "vacuum", not influenced in any way, shape, or form by my knowledge of prior or contemporary work, I've been on multiple occasions highly disappointed to find somebody beat me to the punch, from a patent standpoint. Back in the late 1880s, as you allude, information traveled much slower that it appears to today.

Here's what appears to be a knowledgeable article about white deer, and the differences between albinism and leucistic or piebald. Written by Matthew L. Miller, director of science communications for The Nature Conservancy, it probably has a good chance of being factual. https://blog.nature.org/science/2016/02/03/white-deer-understanding-a-common-animal-of-uncommon-color/

I recently bought two online for $26.50 each, delivered to my door...probably lass than you'll pay for the new release.

Do your laws prevent you from pulling photos directly from the web? There are exceptions to copyright law in the USA that allow limited use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances, and there are several license-free photo sources here as well...that anyone can use without permission. Under US Copyright "fair use" definitions, the ones that would apply to your use of web-sourced photos to illustrate your non-commercial website would be these two: Research and scholarship: Quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations would be deemed acceptable. An art historian would be able to use an image of a painting in an academic article that analyzes the painting. Nonprofit educational uses: When teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use, this is normally acceptable. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan. (Note that she would not be permitted to photocopy the entire book) The images below should be free to re-post: CAB-OVER: CO CONVENTIONAL:

As built, below Later conversion with more modern boom, bed, and dolly, below

STORY AND MORE PIX HERE: https://blog.consumerguide.com/1954-international-model-r-140/

I find it's much easier to superdetail in this large scale, simply because it's easier to hold, machine, and fabricate larger parts.

Great minds think alike. I'm soooooo tempted though...

One Q&D solution to that is to cut a double-ended pin vise in half, chuck your bit in the pin vise, then chuck the pin vise in the drill.

Most definitely liking where that ground-scraping mockup seems to be headed. Low is good.

Faraday was definitely in at the beginning of electric motor concept development, but early motors relied on commutators and brushes to transmit current to the armature, to produce magnetic fields in it. Many motors are still made with brushes and commutators; the small DC units that power slot-cars and model trains are good examples. Tesla's unique contribution was his realization that he could induce magnetic fields within the armature with no electrical connections to it...hence the name, "induction" motor.

Seems like there used to be one on every other block in Britain...

Or dinner...

One more time...have you tried to contact Rep Min? His kit used to sell for about $35, you supply the donor guts from any Bug kit.

Good to know. My feral cats aren't doing such a great job anymore.

Yeah, and a jar of mayonnaise that cost $.79 twenty years ago costs 5 bucks now.