Quick-and-dirty Gemini 6 build.... - Page 3

**lancer525** · #21 09-25-2010, 04:40 PM

I think it's poetic symmetry that one of our hobby's greatest artists is likely going to be in (and the subject of) an article in a modeling magazine... I certainly can't think of anyone else as worthy as David.

You could always enter my 1/200 Montana.

If I ever finish the thing, that is...

Or better yet, build Ken's X-15A2, but you could also build his XB-70 in the same scale to go with it... You could build the Valkyrie out of Red River silver metallic paper, and use markings as if it were a production-version bird... I'll even supply the nose art for you. And the markings...

THAT would get people's attention... (the models, not the nose art, although if I didn't put clothes on her, it would get their attention... Heh)

Congratulations, my friend. You sound like you had an enjoyable day, and one in which you did well. Bravo!

**dhanners** · #22 09-25-2010, 05:24 PM

If anyone does a build article on the X-15A2, it ought to be Billy because he really went to town with the thing. Looks great. In fact, he should query FineScale Modeler and see if they'd be interested in an article. I remember years (even decades) ago, they had an article on building a card model, but it was pretty basic and the hobby has come so far since then. As good as some of the models were today -- and there were some stunning ones -- Bomarc's Mitchell could have brought home a gold.

As for me, I brought home a gold, but I was competing against myself. I won for ATV-Johannes Kepler and since nobody else entered my category, they didn't award a silver or bronze. Which I suppose makes sense.

In all, there were 417 entries. Four of them were paper. I took photos of my line-up, as well as the final display for Orion/Orion DSV.

I took a smattering of other photos, too, of things that caught my fancy. So here some of them are, in no particular order. There was some amazing stuff. The hydrofoil diorama was spectacular, mainly because you could fit the whole thing, base included, in the palm of your hand. I forget what scale it was in, but it was tiny, and as you can see from the photo, the guy did some amazing detailing work on it.

On the other side of the size scale was the Star Destroyer. The sheet accompanying the model said it used over a mile of fiber optic string or thread of cable or whatever you call it. It was big and impressive.

The other photos are just kind of random interesting things, or at least things I thought were interesting.

**Retired_for_now** · #23 09-25-2010, 09:34 PM

Stunning work - and some well-deserved recognition. Good on 'ya!

Yogi

**Maltedfalcon** · #24 09-26-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancer525

The silica gel idea is fantastic, but whatever you do, don't pour it directly into the bottom of the container in a way that your models will touch it. We use that stuff in the museum all the time, and it is never allowed to come in direct contact with an artifact.

That tells me you are not using enough silica gel and/or you have let it absorb to much water between dryings.

My wife takes flower blooms and basically submerges them in the silica gel sand.
a few days/weeks later she takes brings them back out and they are totally dried and desicated but look fresh whole.

Dont forget in between uses take the silica gel and slow bake it for several hours at 275-300 degrees... then put it in a sealed container. if you dont put it in a sealed container it will absorb water and when you need it it wont work.

**lancer525** · #25 09-27-2010, 12:45 PM

The reason that silica gel is not allowed to come into contact with artifacts, is because it wicks moisture into and out of them. Standard museum practice: Never, never, never allow anything to come in direct contact with an artifact, unless it absolutely does not outgas, incite hygroscopic transfer, leak, or is anything other than absolutely, totally inert. It is paramount that an artifact never be exposed to anything that can damage it. Ever.

While it might be nice for saving flower petals, if they were in a museum and she did that, she'd lose her job. We do things for a reason in museums. First and foremost, do no harm. We have a preserved flower here in our artifact collection. According to the handwritten note with it, it was cut and dried in 1846. It is in an inert, sealed container, completely separated from the small (less than 1oz) packet of silica gel, and it is never allowed to come into contact with anything, except the inert bolster material.

I've been a museum curator for 18 years. You can take my word for it, or not.

**Maltedfalcon** · #26 09-27-2010, 01:57 PM

I totally believe you.
Museum level conservation is an art as well as a science.

**KieferRhys** · #27 09-27-2010, 03:19 PM

Given the price of Silica Gel, and it's "not quite the safest stuff" I have an alternate take on the hydroscopic drying scenario - Sugar! Seriously though, this stuff does leech down humidity quite well, and just cakes up in an absorbed state. I've not tried it in a modeling context, but about 30g of sugar left in the car overnight leaves me blessedly free of internal misting in the morning (Old car, no A/C, knackered heaters)