Member postings for SillyOldDuffer

Well in so far as I can with limited equipment!

With a cheapo 0-25mm micrometer I consistently get 6.00mm and 24.015, which might be telling me something about the micrometer's accuracy close to maximum.

The micrometer's ratchet and big flat anvils help with consistency. In comparison Calipers are much more vulnerable to tilt and pressure errors.

Dave

By fair means and foul I now own four different Digital Calipers. They cost me £4.99, £9.99, £30 and £50. The £50 caliper was significantly reduced from the usual price as a special offer.

Only the two expensive calipers came with a calibration certificate. They both claim ±0.02mm.

I measured a precision parallel five times in each dimension. I took care to measure the dimensions at the same point on the parallel each time. The precision parallel came with a certificate claiming 100 ±0.01mm, 6 ±0.02mm and 24 ±0.005mm

The calipers and parallel were cleaned before the test. The order of testing was shuffled by rolling a dice. The temperature was 19℃.

I also recorded the zero reading before and after each set of five readings. I did not reset zero during each round of 15 measurements.

Results

Average of Five Readings (mm)

'100mm' '6mm' '24mm' Zero at end

Caliper A 99.916 6.012 24.042 -0.01
Caliper B 99.922 6.038 24.028 0.02
Caliper C 99.952 6.028 24.070 0.00
Caliper D 99.880 5.976 23.968 -0.01

Standard Deviation (mm)

'100mm' '6mm' '24mm'

Caliper A 0.086 0.008 0.051
Caliper B 0.018 0.013 0.030
Caliper C 0.019 0.013 0.031
Caliper D 0.014 0.011 0.013

I find it difficult to work out from the readings which Caliper is which. The strong implication is that, for home workshop use, expensive Digital Calipers are not good value for money.

Are you able to identify the expensive Calipers and can you rank the calipers according to which was the best deal?

Of course it's possible that I've only proved that good calipers are wasted in my clumsy paws. Even if that's true, I still conclude that my money could have been spent better. I'd be grateful though for any comments that might improve my technique.

Cheers,

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 26/09/2016 13:36:34

You've most probably done all this already Sam, but just in case:

• Lock the two slides that don't need to move before cutting
• Make sure the tapers are clean
• Insert the end-mill into the collet after putting the collet in the chuck, not before.
• The end-mill must be more than hand tight in the collet
• Nip up the drawbar sufficient for the collet chuck to grip the spindle taper firmly
• Move the Mill-Head close to the work rather than extend the quill

Dave

Prince Rupert's Drops!

All you need to make x-mas gifts for the family is a blow-lamp...

Dave

Not "thick" at all Raymond, just not familiar with Hopper's joke. Why should you be?

He's referring to an medieval theological debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's become a metaphor for pointless debate.

The graph is, I think, from a scientific paper that calculated the answer from the Gravitational and Bekenstein Bounds. (Bekenstein Bounds are something to do with Black Holes.) It's a scientific joke. If you ever watch "The Big Bang Theory" on telly, it's the sort of thing Sheldon enjoys.

Theology and modern Physics appeal to a rather small group - it's Nerd Humour at it's finest!

Regards,

Dave

I suggest we need a new thread to discuss this one.

Hopper's graph implies that the information of a physical system, or the information necessary to perfectly describe that system, must be finite if the region of space and the energy is finite.

I don't know what that means, but it must be good for an argument. Which paradox is exactly the opposite of Hopper's point.

Made me laugh anyway.

Cheers,

Dave

PS I am still interested in ER theory.

"My understanding is that Linux is exactly the same".

Not so, this is one area where UNIX systems are genuinely superior to the Windows family. The distinction is blurred these days but there's a technical difference. UNIX started with a multi-user multi-tasking architecture whereas Windows was single-user multi-tasking. (Not because Microsoft were stupid, rather because they had to deliver a consumer product within the constraints of early micro-processors.)

Taking a multi-user system down to apply an update is highly undesirable and in consequence the upgrade process on multi-user systems is somewhat complicated. In comparison. upgrading is much simpler to do if unrestricted reboots are allowed, and this is how Windows SOHO computing is done.

Large Microsoft installations are unlikely to use the SOHO approach. Instead, a much more sophisticated package management system, possibly 3rd party, will apply changes is a much less intrusive way. But these complicated solutions aren't something you would want to have to manage at home.

Linux (and MAC) users benefit from history by getting more flexible and less intrusive package management. Users get to choose when or if they want to take an upgrade. Most upgrades are applied on the fly and they are much less less likely to require a reboot to take effect.

Of course, the technical sophistication of linux-style software management doesn't count for much if you need to run applications that only work on Microsoft Windows.

Dave

Lies, damned lies and statistics time!

I have the 15th October 1964 Model Engineer in front of me. Unusually it has adverts for several lathes that include prices.

The magazine was 2/6d in 1964 and it is £3.80 today. So based on the cost of ME the value of a pound back then was 30.4 times higher than today. (Obviously this is a fair metric - Model Engineering magazine was just as good value in 1964 as it is today!)

Six lathes are advertised with prices. P&P is extra, but I haven't factored that in. (But as an example P&P for the Meteor was £22.80 in today's money and you had to return the crate.)

Meteor II (no chuck or motor) - £26.15.0 equivalent to £813 today

Gamages 3 5/8" x 16 1/2" (no chuck or motor) - £39.17.6 equivalent to £1212 today

ML7 (not clear if motor included) - £74.5.0 equivalent to £2257 today

Super 7 (not clear if motor included) - £107.10.0 equivalent to £3268 today

Unimat (with motor, 3, 4 jaw and drill chuck) - £39.16.11 equivalent to £1211 today

Super Adept 1 1/8" (with motor, 4 jaw and tailstock chuck ) - £24.13.6 equivalent to £750 today

If the ME Inflation benchmark and my dodgy maths can be trusted these figures suggest that we get rather better value for money today. I'm not sure how a Super Adept compares with a Mini-lathe in terms of quality, but at £750 the Adept would need to be hot stuff to compete.

Does that prove anything? I wouldn't bet money on it.

Cheers,

Dave

At room temperature butane liquefies at about 2.6 atm. The pressure will be higher if the tank gets hot. So the tank has to be made strong enough to resist the worst case pressure, which may be why the designer suggested stainless steel rather than brass.

I don't know if there's a formal test needed for a butane tank as there is for steam boilers. As people wander around with butane lighters made of plastic in their pockets, it can't be too difficult at least for a small one.

Dave

Jason posted first: he's more likely to know than me.

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 23/09/2016 18:31:59

With a WM18 at 420rpm with a 12mm 2-flute HSS I just cut a 2mm deep slot across a 25mm mild steel bar in about 20 seconds. It vibrates but not scary badly.

The 2mm deep cut was based on a rule of thumb for HSS suggesting a max depth of cut of no more than 20% of the end-mill's diameter. Another rule of thumb for HSS is rpm = 6000 divided by tool diameter. I can't remember where I got these 'rules' from but they seem about right. Interested to know if they're wrong!

A 0.5mm deep slot across 25mm took me about 10 seconds with very little vibration.

No coolant used.

Cutting rates vary a lot with how hard the metal is and the sharpness of the tool. After a bit you get a feel for what's what's reasonable.

If you're having a lot of trouble I'd suspect a blunt end-mill or a bad lump of metal. If it was Black Mild Steel, the scale can blunt HSS quite quickly.

Cheers,

Dave

I think that's very true, but would add that people with family commitments, careers and mortgages etc are less likely to have the time, space and spare cash needed to get into metalworking. Instead, they will tend to go for a less demanding creative outlet such as computers, photography, 3D printing, art, sport, electronics, amateur dramatics or whatever else fits their lifestyle.

I'd been planning to have a workshop for over 40 years before I got one. It wasn't until I retired that I had the wherewithal to set one up. To me it's not at all surprising that what you might call the classical scholar end of the Maker phenomenon is mainly populated by the grey and bald!

I suggest that Model Engineering is actually as healthy as ever, but that it's nature has evolved somewhat. It has always been so and it always will be.

I would say it's cheaper and easier to get into Model Engineering these days than it's ever been. True it's harder if you want to use classic British kit or scrounge off industry, but new kit is just a few clicks away on the internet. Judging by the number of suppliers, web-sites and magazines devoted to Model Engineering and it's relatives, I would say the hobby is in good order.

As all them young chaps are ageing rapidly I don't think there will ever be a shortage of newcomers to the hobby. No normal man can resist a lathe once he's in his sixties.

Cheers,

Dave

Anyone else remember "Shoestring Syndrome"? This euphemism for flipping out was quite common in computing in the seventies when burn-out was an occupational hazard in the industry. It still is.

As always the web scores high on Trivia. "Shoestring Syndrome" is a reference to the hero's back-story in the TV Series Shoestring According to Wikipedia, after the star (Trevor Eve) decided to move on, the format was moved from Bristol to Jersey and renamed Bergerac. I never knew that.

I only came in from my workshop to look up how deep to cut a metric thread. I got the answer ages ago and really ought to go back to work. But this armchair is so comfy...

In case you want to know something useful too, it's 0.614 times the pitch.

Cheers,

Dave

Oops, my fault! I was trying to pull your leg Duncan, not challenging your earlier post.

'Not necessarily a good thing though!" was emboldened and underlined when I turned it into a link. Now it's too late to fix it I see it also gave the phrase an unintended sharpness.

My ponderous attempts at humour would be more obvious if I learnt to use emoji. Unfortunately I can't - it would disappoint all the people who know I'm old-fashioned!

Apologies again,

Dave

Strange coincidence. I come in from the workshop for a coffee having just taken the cover off the motor of my WM18 to check it was clean inside. (I mislaid the spindle cover a few weeks ago and have only just found it - and yes, swarf does get inside!)

I've noticed Warco inconsistencies too but put them down to 'true at time of printing' type confusion rather than deception. It must be hard to keep up with the many variations in the detail of this family of machines not to mention whether it's input or output power that's in the spec.

My version of the WM-18 does have an 1100W Output motor, hurrah. I don't think it makes much difference though. I suspect that 600W out is perfectly reasonable for a mill of that size. Perhaps I could take heavier cuts for longer with more risk of breaking something than you, but I don't work like that. And having a bigger motor hasn't made me any more skilled. If only it would!

A bit of good advice I picked up on the forum was to buy the biggest lathe or mill possible (subject to space, weight, money, quality and power requirements). For me the best thing about owning a WM18 is the extra space and travel I get from the worktable. It makes it much easier to mount work when you have plenty of room.

Cheers,

Dave

But don't forget the poor beginner trying to learn their trade. If no-one explained I'd be left in the dark. To that end I'm prepared to forgive a certain amount of willy-waving.

I'm off to the workshop for some 'doing' now, I promise!

Cheers,

Dave

This is what I'm most worried about. I've pencilled in Sunday afternoon to do the checks.

Ta,

Dave

Super news Ron. Thanks for fighting through and sharing the details. Well done you!

Julian should be 'Mentioned in Dispatches' too - excellent.

Best wishes,

Dave

Not necessarily a good thing though!

Cheers,

Dave

Many thanks John. Now why on earth didn't my search find that page?

Cheers,

Dave

Now I'm confused if I've already got the Anniversary Edition or not!

Like Journeyman I'm on version 1607 build 10.0.14393.187 but I have no record in the update log of installing KB3176934. Possibly the log is cleared by installing KB3176934. Nor I have I been able to find anything on the web (yet) that confirms the actual version number of the "Anniversary Edition", though there are several sources that imply that it's 1607.

A quick read of Microsoft's features page for the Anniversary Edition reveals that I can't easily tell from the features whether I have that particular version or not. Most of the changes are for hardware I don't have or remove features I don't have anyway.

Part of my confusion is that Windows isn't my primary system. As such it may not get used for a week or two, which is why I deliberately switch it on a couple of times each month. If the machines have been off for several days I'll be showered with updates, which happened today. The strange thing is I only became aware of Windows 10 Anniversary edition when asked this morning if I wanted to update to it. I didn't agree but perhaps it happened anyway.

Good news - if it is the Anniversary Edition I've got installed it hasn't turned Cortana back on and nothing obvious has broken.

I shall have to do more digging when I have the time.

Ho hum,

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 21/09/2016 13:13:01