Member postings for SillyOldDuffer

In my opinion stuff like this is more trouble than it's worth - you don't know what the alloy is, or how it's been treated.

Could well be Gauge Plate, but it needs to be tested. Without wasting time machining it, test if it will cut with a file or hacksaw. If it does, it will be useful for something! If it cuts, heat a sample up following the usual instructions for hardening Gauge Plate, and quench it in oil. If a file bounces off, it's at least some form of tool-steel, and might be useful.

What separates Gauge Plate from other tool-steels is it's less fussy about temperatures and timing than other hardenable steels. They're fussier, calling for accurate heating and timing, and more likely to crack and warp during a botched quench. The clue it's a tricky one is mixed results - works well and then fails on the next try.

If it is hardenable, don't expect it to be as good as HSS. For use as a cutting tool, my first choice is HSS, because Silver Steel is general-purpose handy rather than high-performance. But it does make at lot of jobs easier.

Problem with scrap is it can make jobs much harder. If the alloy is designed for some other purpose it may not cooperate. I'm not sure it's smart to waste time and money annealing a lump of hardened scrap steel in hope it will machine nicely afterwards, and still be fit for purpose.

Another booby trap, some modern steels contain Boron; makes them extra strong, but difficult to weld which can come as a nasty surprise.

Working with scrap is OK as long as the operator quickly recognises it's unsuitable and doesn't waste time or damage tools with it.  The only way to find out is to experiment.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 17/05/2023 11:35:06

I've always wondered what brazed carbide tools are for? In my workshop they combine the resharpening disadvantages of HSS with the brittle disadvantages of Carbide.

My guess is they're good on a slow lathe when it turns large diameters work. The large diameter results in a high-surface speed even at low RPM, creating a condition where Carbide removes more metal faster than HSS, and the edge lasts longer. Double good if there's no tool-change speed advantage in using relatively pricey exchangeable inserts.

The small brazed carbide sets seem particularly useless. They often come unsharpened and perform badly until touched up on a green wheel that I don't have. Yuk! Someone must like them, perhaps I'm missing something?

Dave

One of my old magazines has a photo of a Myford built into a home-made cabinet like a writing desk, where the top and front panel hinge open to reveal the lathe and form a small bench. Drawers underneath, I think Hollowpoint's Bisleys would be better. Unlike a real writing desk, the frame was heavy timber, probably 2x4, to keep it rigid, and it may have been bolted to the wall.

If you can, store materials and infrequently used tool somewhere else! Oily metal under the marital bed is rarely acceptable, but maybe one of those Garden Storage box thing outside.

Like Nick, my workshop shares space with ladders and other DIY necessities. Fitting it all in was going to be a challenge. So I sat down with a sheet of squared paper scaled to map the available space, marked up it up with avoid areas like windows, doorways and light fittings, and then cut out scale rectangles representing the bench, lathe, mill, self and power saw (the last is important: hand-sawing can ruin the hobby because it's tedious and exhausting. Ask about saws in another question - there are options!)

Then I moved the bits of paper about, looking for fits. Having found a candidate layout, check it for gotchas. For example, mounting a lathe with its headstock tight into a corner means you can't put long stock through the spindle, have blocked access to the gear-change banjo needed for threading, and can't fit a hand-crank (useful for threading on a small lathe.) Tailstock end in a corner is mostly safe! Milling machines need more space than is obvious. because their tables move a fair distance sideways.

Another thing to watch is the space needed to install machines in the first place. A flat run through a big garage door makes it easy to move heavy equipment with an engine crane, but once inside the engine crane needs space to turn. I hot it wrong by forgetting a load of junk was stacked against the wall, so the crane couldn't complete a 90° turn. Luckily I had a Plan B!

Check out weights and sizes, for example the short bed SC3 is 40kg and the long bed model 50kg, both top-heavy. Next size up, an SC4, is 95kg, or a WM250 at 125kg. Smaller lathes and mills can be lifted by a single fit individual, but beware - machine tools are awkward, unbalanced and top-heavy. More difficult than lifting the same weight in a gym. On the other hand, an SC3-sized mini-lathe is an easy two man lift, even if both are weeds, but only if they have room to manoeuvrer. Usually best to install the most awkward items first because every addition reduces manoeuvring space.

All do-able, because heavy weights can be managed with rollers and other tricks of the trade, but trickier to do in a tight space than an empty warehouse. Especially if moving the machine from front-door into the cubby-hole scuffed SWMBO's new carpet, or squashed her cat, or otherwise enraged the boss. The execution may need some thought - as they teach in the Army, "Prior Planning Prevents Piss-poor Performance".

Have you thought of writing it up as a magazine article? How people manage in a small space is always interesting.

Dave

Seems to be an unlucky month for magazines; two pages of my RadCom are stuck together by a splodge of ink.

In the good old days every copy of Model Engineer was checked personally by the Editor, and the whole team was docked a day's pay if he found a mistake. Percival Marshall was a proper editor; he used to flog author's who got there apostrophe's wrong.

And on the subject of iron discipline, that Geoff Theasby deserves a bl**dy good hiding - his jokes are funnier than mine. Unforgivable!

Dave

Begs the question though, what is intelligence?

It's unlikely that intelligence is a uniquely human feature that cannot be replicated in some form or other. I would surprised if AI was human-like, because our DNA has evolved over more than a billion years of survival challenges. We've ended up with two brains: one is primitive and emotional, but built for speed for emergencies like being attacked by bears, the other is logical, analytical, predictive, clever, but slow. The slow brain works out how to build bear traps, and can organise groups. The two are often in conflict, one prioritising the individual and quick answers, the other seeing advantage in society and cooperation. When I drive my car, my mind is a mix of following civilised sensible rules and road-rage!

A machine intelligence is unlikely to be conflicted in the same way as human intelligence. I don't see AI having political leanings, religions, prejudices, or any form of cognitive dissonance such as hypocrisy. All humans are self-deluding, like this portly pensioner imagining that young women desire my person, rather than my money!

So, I think AI will eventually become conscious, self-aware, and able to problem solve and plan with the best of us. Probably not ambitious, aggressive, greedy, or feeling happy or sad, because these are all emotional human constructs, as much to do with our chemistry as our brains. Drink a bottle of Whiskey if you don't believe me!

Is AI a threat? Maybe. It will put a lot of people out of work, but this is nothing new. Lathes and mills did for craftsmen, and then CNC got rid of droves of semi-skilled machinist jobs. Doesn't matter as long as displaced people find something else worthwhile to do. I take a broad view of 'worthwhile'. Now happily retired, I'm pleased to apply my intelligence for fun rather than squander it on mere work!

Dave

Delightfully simple. Even so I couldn't guarantee to make it look right!

Hi Robin,

Presumably ME4717. See this thread. It's being reprinted, so do nothing. Otherwise, contact details are on Page 1, and - for postal deliveries - on the posthub address sheet.

Dave

No disrespect intended, but do you have paint skills?

I don't, and would need a lot of practice before tackling a decorative engine, if ever! My talents don't include patient preparation, or reliable brush and spray work. Not completely incompetent because I've painted some moderately satisfactory arty fruit-in-bowl and landscapes in Acrylic on an easel. The experience was misleading: I thought painting models would be easy in comparison, and soon found otherwise.

Small errors like runs, overpainting, wobbly lines, smudges, slight matt patches in glossy sections and vice versa, colour shades, and too thick layering all catch the eye on models. Not uncommon at exhibitions to see the look of first-class engineering objects spoiled by tiny flaws in the paintwork. The builders have my sympathy; nothing I make is of exhibition standard - it's all difficult, and paint seems to be completely beyond me!

If you don't already have the skills, I advise lots of practice before tackling the engine. There's a book called 'How (Not) to Paint a Locomotive' that might help.

Dave

British law dates back to when the metal value of coins matched their face face value - a Florin contained 2/- worth of Silver. Thus, for both local and international trade, anyone's coinage was acceptable in exchange for goods.

Unfortunately, people would hoard coins, causing trade to grind to a halt, clip metal off the edges, replace sections with base metal, replace real with fakes, and otherwise undermine the whole economy for personal gain. Another serious problem was that the value of Gold and Silver aren't stable, so if the scrap price of Gold rose above the face-value of the coinage, then coins would be melted down, bringing trade to a halt due to a shortage of money. The government would be required to mint more, buying metal in short supply that cost more than the value of the coin. Nasty.

The first response was to make coins the property of the King or Government, their metal value being on loan, rather than owned outright by individuals. This made it possible to apply serious punishments to anyone who messed with the currency, up to and including the death penalty. Undermining the money system was in the same league as treason.

Second response was to realise that as coins were now only tokens, their value assured by the state, there was no need for the metal to match the face value. And carrying the token idea forward, it was found far more convenient for money to be on paper - banknotes, bonds and shares, or even just in a ledger or in a telegram.

As modern coins aren't central to trade any more, and are rarely worth the metal they're made of, the law is unlikely to be interested. Unless the abuse is on a large-scale. Minting your own money is still serious crime!

Dave

My copy still hasn't arrived, but just in case it's faulty, I'm building a Magazine Re-assembler. Sixteen Arduinos programmed to manage a repurposed electric toaster. Very promising so far, only takes 11 hours to disassemble and incinerate a perfect magazine. Under budget too, £800 well-spent...

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 16/05/2023 08:35:00

+1. BSW dates from the cast-iron era and covers larger fasteners. BA was introduced later to provide the small nuts and bolts needed electrical gear and so forth. On British Imperial kit, small fasteners are often BA.

Dave

Perhaps it's a test to see how many Model Engineers can actually fix things!

My copy hasn't arrived yet.

Been a flurry of new threads reporting this problem that I've consolidated together. Apologies if I messed up and the posts are jumbled or lost!

Dave

Um, yes - missing.

DOS pre-dates USB and - if the computer is ancient - the BIOS might too.

My memory may be faulty, but I don't recall MS-DOS ever supported USB in any form.

These days it's possible within limits.

• If a USB capable computer, i.e one with USB sockets, is used to create a bootable DOS on a USB memory stick, then DOS will run the stick. It won't recognise other USB devices, like a plug-in floppy drive. Likewise, booting DOS from a USB floppy drive will work, but DOS won't recognise other USB devices on the machine.
• If DOS is installed on a Virtual Machine running on XP, or any other OS, DOS should inherit at least some of XP's USB capabilities, with drives appearing as E: etc. I'd expect it to take some fiddly setting up rather than just working, plus the hassle of installing a VM. Plenty to choose from - Virtualbox, KVM, QEMU, VMware etc. Trouble likely because XP is also ancient, unable to host a modern VM. Not a good choice if DOS is wanted to keep things simple!
• I'd try one of the modern DOS clones, such as FreeDOS, or an emulator. DOS programs should run on them. Clones and emulators were written after USB appeared so there's a reasonable chance they'll get basic USB functionality from the BIOS,, There will be restrictions. Nothing clever like recognising a camera, or auto-mounting, but anything that behaves like a fixed disc should be honoured.

Dave

PS Just seen Paul Lousick's post = didn't know such a thing existed.

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 15/05/2023 11:22:05

Well, in both cases, the accumulation of evidence has failed to support the sceptic position:

• The possibility that human activity might cause climate change was made in 1938, and no-one believed it. In 1958 a scientist showed experimentally that Carbon Dioxide caused atmospheric heating; not opinion, or belief, but physical evidence. Big oil and other vested interests, which include most of us, went into denial, but in the late 1960's computers were powerful enough to model the effect of different levels Carbon Dioxide on global weather and climate. It predicted man-made pollution would cause enough warming to start melting the ice caps before the end of the century. 'Rubbish' cried the sceptics, but guess what's actually happened: the evidence supported the science, not the deniers. By the late 80's the evidence was strong enough to trigger government and international counter-measures, but very little was done in practice. More coal has been burned in the last 30 years than in all previous history. Modelling the effect of rising CO2 predicted weather would also become more extreme more often. Again, the deniers refuted this, claiming the model was wrong, but no, in 2003 the connection was established in the real world, and in 2022 it's become fairly obvious to the man in the street that something odd is happening to the weather. More obvious in some places than others: no glaciers to melt in the UK, nor are we aware the Sahara desert has grown by about 10% in the last twenty years. More chilling, recent modelling predicts the irreversible large scale melting of the ice-caps, leading to sea-levels rising this century by about 10 metres. In contrast to a mass of real-world evidence confirming the science is broadly correct, the sceptics have nothing solid to gainsay it. The sceptic position is simply one of disbelief, 'this cannot be happening'. I'd be delighted if a sceptic came up with a scientifically provable alternative, but they've had 50 years to do so, and it's not happened. Ignoring evidence is always a mistake, especially if it's bad news.
• Similar with Artificial Intelligence. Maybe too much is expected of it, such as assuming that AI must replicate human behaviour. The evidence shows developing even a basic AI (Bee Brain level) was more difficult than expected, and for most of my lifetime the breakthrough was always 20 years in the future. Not now! Recently a number of breakthroughs have occurred, causing a sudden leap forward. We now have computer systems that recognise images, understand natural languages, self-learn, and problem solve. Chatbot GPT can answer academic exam questions as well as most students, write computer code to meet a user requirement, produce art and poetry, and do other work that previously required human intelligence. Unlikely to result in robots roaming the streets bellowing 'exterminate, exterminate', but - like the internet - AI will result in a lot of subtle changes to the way humans live. Better to manage it than deny AI is happening.

Denial, wishful thinking and dogmatic politics have a long history of bringing about what groups feared most. Choose any civilisation on any continent at any time! Be ironic if our civilisation ended because denying climate change destroyed animal lifeforms and left the world to a bunch of AI computers powered by renewable energy.

Dave

Apart from the cable and plug being tricky to get back in the case, power tool cases are usually shaped with sexy artistic curves that make them difficult to store. My latest purchase, an angle grinder, has to sit on the floor, because the case won't quite fit on the shelf. Plenty of room on the shelf if I bespoke six or seven rectangular wooden boxes, and it rankles that working tools come in cases that won't stack.

Dave

Wouldn't surprise me if they were identical from the same factory, or from different continents. Parallels aren't difficult to make and they're not protected by a patent. Anyone can produce them. Though I own a set for convenience, I've milled a few of my own to get just the right size.

My bought set were made on a grinding machine. These are very common in industry worldwide, and accurate when adjusted correctly. However:

• An out of adjustment machine could churn out a faulty batch before the operator re-sets it
• A business trying to earn a crust from worn-out equipment on it's last legs might be knocking them out cheap or as fakes
• Manufacturing rejects turn up in the market as 'bargains'
• Unless extra is paid for certificated accuracy, it's unlikely that parallels will be inspected individually.

For this class of item, it's cheaper for everyone to let the customer to detect errors and let the retailer refund or replace. Refund/replace is always a nuisance, extra difficult if the seller is abroad, and the system breaks if the customer buys from a dodgy supplier.

It also winds customers up, particularly those convinced inexpensive tools should be just as good as their top-of-the-range equivalents. In the real world, the cost difference can't be ignored: there's a reason top-of-the-range tools are expensive. It's the cost of ensuring they really do meet a specification, so a 'time is money' customer doesn't waste time sorting out even a percentage of iffy tools.

My set happened to come from Warco, and all the parallels are correct. I didn't expect Warco to guarantee the set would be acceptable on delivery, but I bought confident that they would replace or refund if there was a problem. And in practice, buying from Warco, only one purchase has ever gone wrong, and they replaced the item. Arc Euro have never fouled up, I think because Ketan knows his stuff and puts extra care into purchasing. I don't expect perfection from ArcEuro either, but in the event a dud arrived I'm sure they would refund or replace. Tracy Tools haven't dropped the ball yet either. I've bought successfully from several other UK vendors, but not often enough to find out how well they perform when a purchase goes wrong!

My experience at Shows and buying cheap off the internet has been less happy. Internet 'bargains' I see as a gamble, and I usually win. No tears if the 'bargain' turns out to be anything but, I knew it was a risk.

All my worst junk came from shows. At these, the distance buying regulations don't apply because purchasers can check the actual item. For example, I bought a box of cheap carbide inserts and found later they were rejects. Not a complete waste of money because they all had at least one correct edge, but I kicked myself! My fault - the box had a clear plastic lid, and all I had to do was look.

There's no law that show bought stuff is always rubbish, my best bargain purchases all came from shows. And this is true of all purchases, the buyer always has to apply due diligence and manage expectations.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 15/05/2023 08:55:17

Excellent project!

My understanding is the Leeuwenhoek lens was spherical, as near as nature could make them. One option is a drop of water, which surface tension pulls into a sphere. Another is to pour molten soda glass through a sieve into water from a good height inside a shot-tower. On the way down surface tension forms the liquid glass into a solid spherical drop, quite small as in SK's example. The trick is getting the temperature and height just right so the drops are clear, and the right size and shape. Relatively few were fit for purpose, and Leeuwenhoek and his successors sorted them manually with many rejects.

Water works well as a lens but not for long - it evaporates. Well formed glass spheres are better. Main problem is the eye has to be brought very close to the lens to focus it, making the microscope tiring to use. Compound microscopes are a lot friendlier, but their optics and mechanics are high-tech.

Dave

Leaving a long gap before allowing an operating system to 'phone home' for updates is a potent source of computer problems. If the last update was a few years ago, the operating system and some applications will have been upgraded many, many times, in a series of relatively small safe steps, each starting from a firm foundation.

Not connecting creates an enormous gap, with a huge list of overlapping interrelated changes waiting in the pipeline. Instead of regular updates keeping it simple, long delays create a convoluted monster, that takes ages to sort itself out, and is liable to misfire, causing incompatibilities within the system such as DLL Hell. Also, the anti-virus and security software will be hopelessly out-of-date making the computer an easy target.

It's not unreasonable to run Windows disconnected from the network, and most commercial installations are set up that way. But IT departments don't just reconnect to internet to get upgrades like home users. Their process is planned and managed, basically upgrading and testing in a sandbox, and then either replacing server and workstation operating systems entirely with a 'gold disc', or by patching an existing system. In this system, the size of the gap doesn't matter, but this method of managing dependencies requires expertise and facilities. It's too difficult for the average Joe.

For ordinary home users, deciding to disconnect is a once only decision. Once off-line, stay off-line! A disconnected system will run for years provided nothing changes. Trouble is, change is almost inevitable, for example by deciding to install new software downloaded from the internet. Then the disadvantages of being horribly out-of-date compared with the rest of the world kick in, and they can be much, much more painful than Solitaire failing!

My preferred O/S is Ubuntu, but I have Windows as well because not everything I need runs on Linux. I keep both operating systems up-to-date.

Microsoft annoy me for the reasons Nigel listed. Every major upgrade overwrites my privacy settings and tries hard to nudge me into providing personal information by implying it's essential or a normal system feature. You do not need a Microsoft Account, Bing, Edge or Cortana!

So after every big upgrade, I go on the web, find out what the latest release has switched on, and then wade through Settings to kill it. There are usually at least 10 objectionable features that leak personal information and have to be manually disabled. What's annoying is I usually turned off them all off in the previous release, and the fact I don't want it is ignored.

Linux is far better behaved, but unfortunately doesn't support the same range of applications. Does all the ordinary stuff though.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 14/05/2023 16:43:05

I wouldn't go so far as to say NEVER, but my experience on other 3D-CAD software is that grid-snaps are mostly counter-productive. They're much more useful in 2D-CAD, where it often doesn't matter whether or two lines join correctly as long as the drawing looks OK to the human eye. 3D-CAD is different; it's vital that lines join correctly, because solids can only be generated from valid 2D loops.

Snaps automatically create or enforce accurate connections of various types. Worth practising for an hour or two with them to understand when they're useful, and when they're not. Snaps are tools, and using the wrong tool by accident always causes trouble. Most software does a good job most of the time selecting the appropriate snap automatically, but not always. The operator may have to override the computer's choice.

This example from QCAD illustrates 4 different ways a line might be snapped to a circle. QCAD offers a few more, but the point is which of several snaps is correct depends on what the operator is trying to achieve. If the software makes the wrong choice one or more times and the operator doesn't notice, his sketch won't do what the operator expects, no matter how good it looks!

All CAD tools allow the operator to control which snaps, if any, are active. For example, when a line has to join a circle at a tangent, which can be tricky, it's useful to temporarily turn all the other snaps off. Doing so ensures the line can only join correctly at a tangent, and not just look like one!

Zooming in on sketches is one way of detecting otherwise invisible connection errors. When CAD tools refuse to work, despite everything looking right, it's often because the sketch has a tiny mistake, perhaps because the wrong snap engaged. Snapping to the grid caused me more trouble than all the other snaps put together, but it's well to understand other snaps can also cause trouble.

Snaps are simple enough once understood, but have the potential to cause much confusion. On a drawing board, the draughtsman has to know how to draw tangents. A computer deskills tangent drawing by creating them with a few clicks, but the operator has know when to tell the computer exactly which snap is required when there's any ambiguity.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 14/05/2023 12:16:11