Member postings for steve de24

By far the best discussion re the nature of time is given here :-

GS1

Enjoy.

Just multiply the 0.73 by 20 (there's no need to halve the 0.73)

0.73 x 20 = 14.6

If you are doing the x20 in your head then split it into two parts. 

(A) shift the decimal point to multiply by ten.   (B) double the answer.

In your example this would be   0.73 becomes 7.3  (that's the x10 bit)  and double that is 14.6

Just to show it works, there's no need to do the next bit.

14.6 increments at 0.025 each = 14.6 x 0.025 = 0.365 which is the depth of cut you are looking for to take 0.73 off the diameter.

Regards

Steve

Edited By steve de24 on 06/01/2021 00:28:46

Neil, is this the one you are thinking of?

**LINK**

Steve

Ed

For finish cuts on copper have you tried a vertical shear tool? See 3:30 into this video.

**LINK**

Steve

Ed

For finish cuts on copper have you tried a vertical shear tool? See 3:30 into this video.

**LINK**

Steve

Jason, very neat work - a technique worth remembering - thanks for sharing. Steve

Neil wrote "What's the point of going to a Motorhead concert if it doesn't make your ears bleed."

I never saw Motorhead but saw Lemmy in the early 70's at a Hawkwind gig like this one :-

**LINK**

Small venue, pitch black at times with strobes going, and very loud. It was quite an experience. Great days.

Steve

Matthew,

The 'Nano' is the smallest published design I know of. It was in ME sometime in the 90's and the plan is still available.

This link is to the late Ron Chernich's attempt to make one. The rest of Ron's website is also well worth a read.

**LINK**

Steve

ps.  A bit more info :-

http://www.modelenginenews.org/design/design7.html

Edited By steve de24 on 27/01/2017 21:59:35

Why use titanium? Steel has double the density so twice the momentum.

Steve

Ignore this, senility is kicking in!

Edited By steve de24 on 02/01/2017 19:30:33

John,

Would a 'stub drill' do what you want? A 2.0mm stub drill has a flute length of ~12mm and is considerably stiffer than a standard drill. They are also easy to find.

Steve

If you are going to make a top then this one is far more interesting :-

**LINK**

Steve

PaulR,

If you already have similar diameter taps but they are metric or UN then usually it is ok to substitute those in whatever you are making. (That's the cheapest option!). There is nothing 'special' about BA threads, it probably just means that the original designer was British - if he'd been American they'd be UN threads, if continental then the drawing would call for metric threads.

I have always used carbon taps and get them from Tracy Tools (usual disclaimer) and so far been successful - I'm touching wood as I write this because I don't like tempting fate!

With these small size taps I always use the slightly larger tapping drill size as recommended by Tubal Cain to reduce the torque required to drive the tap at the expense of a slightly reduced thread strength.

I centre drill, drill, and tap without changing the position of the component under the drill press or mill - that way the tap is in line with the hole. I also support the non-working end of the tap either as a sliding fit in the drill chuck - or in a tube held in the drill chuck. Doing that stops any bending of the tap which I'm sure is the easiest way to snap a tap. I use a small (3 inch) tap wrench which grips the shank of the tap - gives me more 'feel'. And always use a tapping lubricant.

Hope this helps,

Steve

Nice looking chess pieces - any chance of uploading pics of all of the different pieces?

Anyone know a simple way to create the textured effect on the body?

Regards,

Steve

Well done Richard, we've all been there with a 'how the hell does this thing go together' problem. Best advice I can now give is to write it down somewhere safe for later reference - unless your memory is a lot better than mine! A good idea is to start a workshop notebook to record things like this.

Steve

Richard and David,

I agree with David but note each jaw has two numbers on it. So start off by laying out the jaws in the order 1, 2, 3 using one of the sets of numbers (all at the inner end of the jaws or all at the outer end). I would try the set of numbers closest to the jaw when assembling it the 'normal' way around. If the jaws don't close down evenly then use the other set of numbers to decide which is jaw 1, 2 and 3. Whichever set of numbers closes the jaws evenly in the 'normal' mode then use the other set of numbers when the jaws are reversed.

Steve

Richard,

A dull clunk has gone off in my head when I look at the picks of your jaws - each of them has two jaw numbers on them (as well as the '215'.

One jaw is numbered 1 and 3

one jaw is numbered 2 and 2

one jaw is numbered 3 and 1

Note the difference between '1 3' and '3 1' is which number is closest to the working end jaw when used in normal or reversed mode.

Are the slots in the body of the chuck numbered? I can't see from the photo.

I think I'm close to how it works.

Steve

Roy, if you look on the back of a reversible jaw then each tooth of the 'rack' is convex on both its radial inner and outer faces, to engage correctly with the scroll.

Steve

Richard,

DS 1 has given a good description on how to put your chuck back together with the jaws the normal way around.

Contrary to what Roy says you can get 3 jaw chucks with reversible jaws - I know, I've got one! You follow the procedure as given by DS1 except that the order you need to insert the reversed jaws is :-

Start by putting jaw 3 in slot 3.

Next, jaw 2 in slot 1

Last, jaw 1 in slot 2

At least that's what works on mine.

Steve

That takes me back - there's nothing like the smell of print room ammonia for sorting out a morning hangover!

Steve