Member postings for Jelly

And the bits arrived to finish the Jerry-Can Adapter.

Seated quite easily with a couple of firm blows with the big Thor hammer, at which point I noticed a joke from the friend who gave me the spare nozzle...

Oh Dear, I won't be following that instruction.

That seems to be quite common with instrument makers, it's so specialised you just can't buy the tools.

A community organisation I have links to was bequeathed the contents of a woodwind instrument makers workshop which near enough doubled the size of their metalworking workshop, I think a lot of his specialist instrument making tools went to a college which still ran a diploma in instrument making, one of only a few in the country.

I also helped a lad out a few years ago with rebuilding a Union Graduate and a Walking Pattern-Makers's lathe into metal spinning lathes, the former for roughing in the shape of steel pans before hammer-forming, and the latter for making cymbals.

When he was done it was quite a sight to see him shaping 40" diameter custom cymbals, the sheer rotating mass of his wooden forms was enough to give me the heebie-jeebies.

Oh, forgot the "inches of [insert substance here]" pressure measurements, in-hg and in-h2o being common in different fields.

I've fired and driven industrial/shunting locos which had one injector and one Weir pump (as in the company, who are still making weird pumps for odd requirements today), which had certain advantages for being efficient with steam when the boiler pressure was low and having much greater suction head which allowed it to be used for re-filling the tender in less than ideal circumstances...

But the auxiliary outlet used to fill the tender (with an auxiliary input) could also have a nozzle attached to the end of the hose, providing a jet of alarmingly high pressure water for washing things down.

I do recall that when the pump broke down it was really quite awkward to work on, but good whilst it was going.

In any case, I'm not sure how common those were, or when they came into use, but it would provide any maintanance depot a mobile source of high-pressure jetting equipment, just hook up to a shunting engine which is still in steam and you're away.

Honestly, I couldn't truly differentiate between "Imperial Imperial" and US customary at this point, other than knowing through bitter experience to ask "Which Gallons" or "Which Tons" when someone tries to use those units.

I know this won't be truly complete, but should be a fairly good cross-section, so let's have a crack...

Mass:

• Grain, [interstitial base 16 unit I can't remember the name of] Oz, Lb, Stone (people only), Cwt (I actually find hundredweights oddly intuitive to estimate the weight of big things), Tons, [avardopoidis sp? versions of the same].

Volume:

• [weird appothacaries units], flOz, Pint, Quart, Gallon, [comical brewing barrel sizes], bbl (strictly it's an oilfield unit, but it's defined in US Gal), cuYd, cuft

Pressure/Force:

• Psi, KSI,

Length:

• "mil", "tenth", "thou", Inch, Foot, Yard, Mile, Nautical Mile (still in use in metric too because it's defined conviently via something to do with arc-seconds of longtiude).

Area:

• Acre, sqft, sqin, square mile

Power:

• hp, lb*ft/s, BTU/hr

Energy/work

• lb*ft, BTU,

Force:

• lbf, poundal (might be the same as lbf, Slug (not the same exactly but the unit of mass which gives the imperial system it's equivalent of 1kg = 9.81N equivalence for gravity), kip (us customary unit used for statics calcs in steelwork)

Torque:

• lb-ft, lb-in, oz-in (not the same as lb*ft, thanks whoever decided on that convention!),

Radioactivity units:

• Curie, Rad & Rem (just URGH, because radiation protection was just soooooo simple before that I needed the unit conversions to spice it up right?).

From there you get into the compound units in imperial, many of which would be derived units with their own name in SI and CGS (in this regard imperial can be better when you're trying to ensure an analytic solution or non-dimentionalisation makes sense), like lb*s/ft² (or lbf*s/ft² because people couldn't agree) for viscosity (the reyn might be a dynamic viscosity unit in imperial actually, it's that or stokes but I'm pretty sure the stokes is CGS), which are actually what I encounter most in an engineering context.

Most of the plants I've worked on over the years have had at least some parts which were developed pre-metrication (in which case it's a CGS vs. Imperial toss-up) or during metrication (urgh, CGS), it's also really common to see upgrades to UK and European plants which have integrated equipment from American and Canadian vendors, which is designed and specified in US customary units (which isn't Imperial, but is close enough to trap you).​

I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement:

as long as we can chuck US customary units in with Imperial.

I don't mind either in a historic context, as it's a trade off for some quite cool opportunities to get up close with artefacts and living history which allows me to see the evolution of different industries (and how long some equipment lasts) first hand...

But for the love of god stop deliberately using them in new designs for sale to the international market!

I'm not sure this is true, at least in Britain it's still pretty common for young people (who do anything remotely practical at all) to have good familiarity with both imperial and metric systems, and to be able to convert between the two freely.

Most of us* prefer metric, but as long as America exists we have to be conversant in both and the US influence on young people has if anything grown as a result of the internet making "the pond" a lot smaller in people's digital lives.

​

When you get to young people who are being trained in engineering occupations, unit conversions are still considered a fundamental skill they love to drop into the curriculum to catch people out at every level right up to people doing MSc/MEng... At least for people in the process industries.

Because in real life you have to work with systems that were designed anywhere from 1840 to the present day, and built all over the world.

So you may well find yourself having to modify or integrate with an assembly originally built when your grandfather was your age, which now has different components specified by long since defunct OEM's in SI, CGS, US Customary, Imperial, and drawn to three or four different standards.

​

That latter point is why I don't get why metrication of the hobby really matters... In real life the existence (and continued promulgation by Americans) of the imperial system is just something you deal with.

*Yes, I'm claiming to be a young person, but being early 30's that statement is somewhat relative.

Edited By Jelly on 08/03/2023 12:36:01

If all else fails, switching to a CBN insert will happily turn the hardened scale and chilled spots all day long, even taking light passes that don't cut through and under the scale in one go.

You'd ideally need to run at somewhere around 1200 sfm (so in the 600-900rpm range for a 6" workpiece), with CBN, which does raise a consideration of work-holding and machine rigidity...

So in practice it would be "as fast as you think is still safe", and don't worry about sparking or glowing chips, that's very much par for the course with CBN.

CCMW inserts suitable for small hobby lathes are available in CBN, but they're about 5 times the price of a carbide insert so it might not be the first port of call if you're cost-conscious...

But I wouldn't go back to not having a couple of them stashed in the workshop now I've used them, the flexiblity to machine really hard materials without just mullering inserts is quite a useful one (especially in a workshop with no surface or cylindrical grinding facilities).

Finally managed to get the 3D printer kindly gifted to me by Steve Bright working, no thanks to the manufacturer whose lax approach to model numbers and version control leads to their website suggesting you should install entirely the wrong firmware.

(For reference to anyone facing issues with a Wanhao D9 in the future, there's a Mk1, an Mk1 upgrade, an MK2, an MK2 BLtouch, an early MK3 which was sold as the MK2 BLtouch for a while but needs MK3 firmware, and an MK3 proper).

This said, once the maintenance and updates are done, it's very simple to use, runs well and the print quality was pretty good for a first run set up with generic settings by a relative newbie...

On the point of being a relative newbie, as the picture demonstrates I may have been a tad overenthusiastic in scaling the model down to reduce print time.

The easiest way would be to use a toe-jack slipped between two of the wooden slats (this may require cutting a bit of a notch to let it through) to lift the lathe off the pallet, then cut a notch in the outer edge of the pallet to allow you to slide it out round the jack.

If you don't want to buy a toe-jack and can't rent one cheaply (they're about £20 for a week here) then you can probably make an attachment which fits onto a standard bottle jack, as I seem to remember you have welding equipment. I would use 10mm or 15mm plate if I was fabricating one.

When you get the first end free of the pallet, lower that end onto thick wooden blocks, then free the other end and step down slowly in small stages at both ends.

You might want to make some coupons of steel (20mm is a good starting point) to put the leveling bolts down onto, this will:

1. Let you take the jack out easily,
2. Protect the floor from deforming,
3. Reduce the chance of 2. causing the lathe to shift out of alignment once you do that.

Managed to get out and do something this evening after an inordinate amount of time tied up doing other things.

So I quickly knocked out a little job I kept putting off:

A BSP ⅛ F×M adapter sized to be a force fit into a solid jerry can nozzle (the green thing on the left).

Once I get an additional olive for the pictured ¼" compression fitting (I seem to have mislaid them) I will install a copper dip-tube which extends to slightly less than full depth in a standard jerry can and press it in.

The end result is that I can hook it up to the diesel heater's bulkhead fitting on the outside of my workshop via a flexible hose (with crimped ⅛ BSP female swivels) allowing me to change out 25lt jerry-cans of fuel as and when required with a single clip.

I should get the sign-writing brushes out and add "Gas-Oil - not for road use" to the Jerry Cans too, lest I forget which is which and get myself in trouble with HMRC at some point in the future.

I also got to fully test-drive the smart controls for the heater which arrived the other week, an Internet of Things enabled "RF Blaster" which allows my smart home system to replicate the Remote Control and operate the heater in response to the workshop temperature sensors, smartphone or voice control.

It's not necessary at all, but being able to set it going whilst eating tea so by the time I go out it's up to a good working temperature (say 12-13°C) is a nice touch.

Putting the heater outlets directly above the operator position for the mill and lathe was also clearly the right move, I can run it on a far lower setting than required to heat the entire workshop up to a comfortable room temperature and still be toasty warm whilst stationary operating a machine, meaning if I go to do something physical immediately after making a part, I don't melt.

Edited By Jelly on 06/03/2023 22:33:45

So you're the person who's been peeking through my workshop windows!!!

It's more the 6" scale and functional elements that make me wonder if I'm coming unspun...

A larger skidsteer (even non-tracked) could be a viable donor machine, I think I need to go have a chat with my local second-hand plant dealer about giving me a call if they get suitably sized non-runners in before they start parting them out.

I have about a decade of design experience building and modifying chemical plants (with a smattering of toolmaking and architectural joinery thrown in because my career history is a little odd), but the constraints there are generally very different to a mechanical product like a tiny plant machine... There's no analytical method for developing a comfortable control layout or making greasing points easily accessible and so on.

I think you're probably right that nothing I take from a book is going to replicate just working through the design process systematically, and it's very clear that the constraints I have developed:

• off the shelf power pack,
• accommodates the operator on the machine,
• doesn't weigh more than 2800kg,
• is actually capable of working as a (tiny) bulldozer,

completely over-ride any considerations of accurately producing a scale model, so it becomes more about aesthetic design of the visible components.

I guess I have already compromised on having a true scale model by wanting it to be somewhat functional, as modelling the engine to scale would result in a power pack with really weird characteristics that would (probably) not develop the required torque; (not to mention the amount of pattern-making required to replicate that RR inline six block).

If I'm willing to fully sacrifice how true to life it is in terms of mechanicals a bit further and go for the approach of producing a functional visual replica, then it would allow me to use a hydraulic drive system, which gives back a lot of space for the operator and controls.

​

When I began idly thinking of this, I was considering 6" or 4" scale, and having worked through some numbers, it seems like 6" scale would be sort of do-able and should result in a trailer-able sub 3 tonne "model" with enough room to have the operator inside the track footprint.

4" scale would actually fit within the bed and GVW of my pickup (just) but would need to be RC to avoid the risk of legs being in the pinch zone of the blade hydraulics; and wouldn't really have the weight required to put it's tractive effort down and actually doze anything other than loose sand/aggregate, which would be sort of a shame.

​

If I do go down the hydrostatic power route, the next logical step is to go looking for a donor vehicle to lift motors, final drive and control valves from so I know the dimensions of key parts which I wouldn't be building in-house.

Looking more at the material which is out there about the Vigor, I am beginning to suspect there might be merit in deciding to make my own tracks rather than use COTS rubber ones, as the christie type suspension flexes far more than any modern track system... But I can sense how thankless and expensive a task that would be from several years away!

​

I do suspect I sound completely nuts even by ME standards.

I can see where you're going with that, One way or another all of them have that functionality, and SE is probably amongst the better options for it too.

No foolproof but definitely worth the time investment to set up, the parametric relationships between parts during initial design.

I default to Solid Edge CE, but have the option to use Siemens NX, AutoCAD or Fusion360 if it's called for.

As per the thread title really.

I have debated making some live steam models for a while, but with a history of working on heritage steam it doesn't really excite me...  Nevertheless I have the itch to build something which isn't a sub-assembly or component, but is complete in and of itself.

I'm currently coming to the end of the design phase for a Horizontal Boring Mill which I originally envisioned being a ⅜ scaled working model of a TOS W100A but due to cost constraints and the practicalities of making a functional machine tool, will be entirely it's own thing.

Once I move on to building it, I will have the headspace to start designing something else, and I'm drawn to making a model of a Vicker Vigor / VR180 (for the uninitiated: a very strange, and unreasonably fast 1950's bulldozer made with spare parts from WW2 era tanks).

It strikes me that the inherent ergonomic and operability issues with scaling something like that down are much the same issues that everyone who builds model trains for 5" or 7¼" gauge face in terms of needing a to create human scale seating and controls, whilst maintaining the aesthetics of the model.

My thoughts so far are that it should be small and light enough to fit on a standard plant trailer, use standard rubber tracks from a widely used model of mini/midi excavator, and use a standard diesel-hydraulic power-pack in the 45hp-80hp region which is well supported (probably Yanmar/Kubota).

Those constraints give me a starting point, but I can't really design off that alone, without giving consideration to where I will sit and how to arrange the controls given that's going to impact how I package the hydraulics and gearbox (if I choose to go direct drive), which will in turn dictate the power transmission to the final drive.

Which gets me back to, has anyone written articles or a book on how to work through these design challenges in a sensible order to prevent me from finding myself in an endless cycle of designing and re-designing things?

Edited By Jelly on 05/03/2023 21:57:27

It doesn't have the obligatory crust of sugar and instant coffee either.

Might be a commercial teaspoon as used in drawing and sales offices, but you need to handle it to feel for that "just stamped no deburring" minimum viable quality feel to the handle to differentiate it from a domestic model.

This was not exactly the light-hearted direction I had hoped the thread would take when posting it (with my tongue lodged firmly in cheek).

It might be more constructive to contact the member you have in mind via PM with your concerns, rather than dropping acerbic comments out there that could apply to dozens of participants (myself included) and leaving everyone to wonder if you're judging them for being "idle".

My limited experiences working with explosive and other "energetic" materials, some significantly less stable than cordite have all been singularly dull.

But a remarkable amount of effort has to be put into making and keeping the experience an uneventful one.