Member postings for Jelly

My experience is that the building inspectors take a more nuanced view of what counts as a habitable space (which is actually a matter for the planning inspectorate to determine), and that garages and outbuildings under permitted development rights are not classified as such.

Consequently whilst only a selected proportion of the building regulations actually apply to permitted development over 30m², whilst anything under 30m² to which the building regulations applies will generally also require planning permission.

I bottled 22lt of Bramley Apple Cider, after the secondary fermentation completed (maleic acid into lactic acid, giving a softer mouth feel and buttery aftertaste)... Not tried it yet, but based on the SG, it should be rocket fuel at about 9.8%; we have friends round for NYE so I guess we will find out!

.

Somewhere in the middle of that process I took delivery of an inexpensive chinese diesel heater which arrived about 3 weeks sooner that expected based on normal AliExpress shipping.

I am still waiting on the MQTT controlled "RF Blaster" to allow my smarthome system to emulate the heater's remote and link it to the environmental control system in the workshop, so not in a great hurry to set it up.

But as I'm planning to put the fuel supply outside and run a hard line in copper microbore, and duct the heating to specific locations based on a CFD model of the workshop, getting it positioned so I can start measuring up for the various connections etc should probably be a task for tomorrow, Cider-permitting of course!

Irritatingly I can't find the video now, but I have seen a build video on YouTube recently for quite an advanced one applying the same concepts as modern boilers (Primary and Secondary Combustion Chamber with dedicated air supply to each) to maximise the heat output, followed by a flue arrangement to work as a radiator.

The guy went into some detail of how to size the various bits, and was at pains to point out the risk of fire and the need for a guard... Just as well really as when demonstrated the initial part of his flue-radiator was glowing orange.

If I can find it I'll post it up for others.

Edited By Jelly on 17/12/2022 23:29:02

It's still about, but the bags are paper... However, Coalite is nothing more than a brand name now, you pay an extra £5-£10 a bag to have a familiar name on the same imported product.

From the 1980's onwards they weren't really a solid fuel company, but a chemicals company which happened to produce solid fuels as a by-product.

Unfortunately when they were bought by Anglo United in the mid 90's, the debt which funded the purchase proved too much, and a death spiral where all the profitable parts of the business were asset stripped off in a vain attempts to keep financing the debt meant that by 2002 they were all but insolvent, and the last plant at Bolsover closed for good in 2004.

In part their death was hastened by the decline of the agrochemicals sector in West Yorkshire, which was a key market for their products, but themselves had fallen victim to increasing levels of globalisation, and a resurgent indian chemical industry taking an interest the highly profitable substituted phenols market as a potential high value product.

Edited By Jelly on 16/12/2022 20:59:42

You can get it from most good coal merchants still, including some of the online ones although it's not cheap.

Coke forges are still favoured by a lot of "Artist Blacksmiths" partially because it's easier to control your heat, or even to get a differential heat on a workpiece, although the reason most of them mention explicitly is that it's the best heating medium to use for forge-welding in the manner you describe.

When I was still doing more heritage rail stuff the blacksmiths at the railway would use steam coal rather than buying coke specially, and had a very specific method of feeding the coals into the hearth, such that the volatiles would be driven off before it was fed into the burning zone, effectively coking the coal just before it was required.

I mean, they would be right about that:

1) there are now techniques for producing steel which are reaching the point of commercial readiness which use direct hydrogen reduction of ores, at reduced temperatures to produce iron suitable as a feedstock for secondary steelmaking in an EAF; this doesn't require a blast furnace, and uses a lot less energy and raw materials.

2) blast furnaces produce pig iron, not steel,

and

3) blast furnaces don't need coke, they require a fuel which will yield a source of carbon (to produce CO) and heat.

Nippon Steel in Japan has several "Direct Melting System" plants which combine Gassification of municipal waste with primary steelmaking, using black-bag waste instead of coke, they have been doing so since 1979.

The Indians too have experimented with various types of Bio-Char and Waste products as alternative blast furnace fuels to some success.

​​

Interestingly waste tyres would be a shoe-in for it that kind of thing, were it not from the sulphur from vulcanising adversely affecting the pig-iron and driving up the cost of subsequent BOF steelmaking steps...

Which is the exact same reason that British Steel gave for being unable to use the coal from the proposed mine to which you're alluding at their Scunthope plant; whilst Tata is threatening to close Port Talbot entirely.

It's pointless, putting vermiculite brick insulation in close around the part will result in far more heat going in than using coke, (unless you basically create a blacksmith's hearth, at which point, you don't really need the torch).

​

If you don't already have the torch, you can get a second hand Type 5 welding shank with tips, then buy a new propane mixer and single stage oxygen regulator all for less than the price of a decent "propane only" torch like the Sievert Promatic; 10L bottles of Oxygen are £50 rent free from Adams gas, and just like that you get a lot on heat on tap, enough that you need the insulation more as a backstop than a heat retention device.

Oxy-Propane is way easier to use for high heat-output tasks like brazing in the home workshop as you don't have the draw-off limits that a porta-pack of old would, so you can run a big "pepper-pot" or "rosebud" type nozzle off a little propane cylinder if required.

It depends on the condition of the pressed part in fairness, we were lucky in that my friend had managed to source a large amount of different rust free parts (from Blackpool of all places, not sure how that one works out) the window channels amongst them.

Faced with trying to re-use salvaged channels, at least one of them would have been simply too corroded to take that approach with, and we would have had to use an adhesive (or try to fabricobble something from a pattern part for another vehicle and the original with a spot-welder).

Sikaflex 255FC would be the obvious choice, it's tensile strength (6MPa) is quite close to that of a typical Glass (7MPa) which means it gives about as strong a bond as is possible without being so permanent that deliberate disassembly would result in destruction.

The only caveat would be: If you can lay your hands on an individual cartridge rather than having to buy a full case, given it's mostly sold to automotive manufacturers and coach-builders, it's not easy to come by.

I was going to look up the two Technical Data Sheets to see if the performance characteristics were definitively better than Tiger Seal (I have been told it is significantly better by several sources, but talk is cheap), unfortunately whilst the Sika TDS is very detailed, the U-Pol TDS doesn't actually give any technical data...

Faced with the same situation myself on an old Citroen C15 window for a friend, I just used some fresh rubber packing, and progressively closed the channel up onto the rubber and glass using a press to apply force slowly and carefully.

The result was just like the OEM assembly, with no adhesives required, and has been in service 5 years so far with no issues (well, with that window, the chassis, cills, engine, gearbox, speedo and lights are all another matter).

Edited By Jelly on 16/12/2022 16:27:07

I used to live with one of the Senior Applications Engineers for a company which delivered fatigue and durability modelling of products based on sensor data, and one of my missus's friends is a specialist in vibration analysis for advanced machining at Boeing... I'm working with knowledge which is the scraps from their tables so to speak.

In my professional engineering career the extent of vibration analysis has tended to extend as far as:

• "Pump's loud, can you get a fitter to come look at the bearings on the back shift", and
• "Pump sounds funny I think that's cavitating, radio the board operator to find out why upstream pressure is dropping".

​

However, I'd definitely be interested to see if I can source reasonably priced components to cobble together a basis vibration analysis rig, although it is decades since I last worked with strain gauges during Physics A-Level so there's probably quite a lot of basic learning to re-do as well.

Fully agree, the spindle assembly is very likely the most rigid element with respect to lateral deflection in the whole assembly, whilst the head-column slideway and column-bed connection are very likely sources of deflection.

I'm pretty sure there's a Stephan Gotteswinter video about trying to eliminate some of the deflection in his old Optimum MB4 mill (which is very similar in design to many of the Wabeco mills) using epoxy to improve the fit and bedding of some parts, which suggests that the inherently compromised design is exacerbated by "good enough" machining of mating surfaces too.

Reducing static deflection would (usually, absent unlucky resonance effects) result in reductions in dynamic deflection too, although I was mentioning it in an attempt to illustrate to Howard that if you were measuring that kind of deflection statically, there was potentially even worse real world deflection at certain cutting speeds which were unfavourable (the same being true of much bigger more heavily built machines as well)

I would be interested to see a comparison of the dynamic deflection in a mill like yours to a more old school milling machine design (which didn't have the benefit of FEA, but does have lots of material to increase stiffness and/or simply absorb and dampen vibration)...

I have a suspicion that the older design would still have dynamic deflection, but simply with the periodicity shifted such that it had less impact on surface finish in the anticipated operating range of RPM/Feeds

Edited By Jelly on 14/12/2022 00:09:54

Based on Winter Mountaineering and Whitewater Kayaking, I would tend to agree that modern "Polartec" fleece thermals are the warmest thing I've found for a given thickness/restrictiveness, with other non-branded microfleeces coming in a reasonable second.

Full Pile fabrics as used in diver's and caver's "Wooly Bear" undersuits, or a Buffalo/Mardale/Montane Pile-Pertex Smock* is far and away the warmest option, but one of the smocks is about as bulky as a thick hoodie (although unlike a hoodie will keep you warm down to -15 as a single layer!)

The Helly-Hansen thermals with a sort of perforated texture and the stripey band down the arm (and other comparable ones) are quite good for their non-restrictiveness, but just aren't as warm as a piled fabric when you're stood still.​

It's all about finding a fabric which will trap the maximal amount of the air next to your skin, which is why the pile times work so well.

All that touting fancy manufacturers of outdoor gear aside...

Years ago when i was a poor student primark did a set of blue microfleece thermals (i think long-johns, short and long sleeved t-shirt) for a couple of quid a piece, I tried some and found them plenty warm, but felt they were not at all cut for movement so bought fancier ones once when I could... but if you're just pottering about the workshop this isn't a problem.

They appear to be largely unchanged (other than by inflation)

* I keep debating the utility of making a pile lined smock out of something like cotton ventile or cordura which would have a better abrasion resistance than Pertex for use as a cold-weather working garment, but i'm keenly aware that the specific qualities of the Pertex fabric is a large part of why that system is warm without being sweaty, so you need to hit a goldilocks level of vapour/air permeability for the outer with minimal water absorbance.

My ideal would be to use Durably or Inherently Flame Retardant fabric for both inner and outer layers, but all the suitable outers would have similar compromises to above, and i'm pretty sure that a suitable pile fabric doesn't exist at present...

Everyone has to draw the line somewhere, and I'm pretty sure that weaving with nomex is over mine.

Edited By Jelly on 13/12/2022 23:47:32

That's true for determining if there's an issue with bearing/quill fit, but rather misses the point of considering the rigidity of the machine relative to the workpiece.

Gerry's experiment was to measure the total deflection of the spindle relative to a workpiece when the overall machine structure was loaded.

Because the machine's body has different levels of rigidity in different planes as an inevitability of the asymmetry of it's construction, it would be fully expected to show a measurable difference.

​

The differences highlighted by Gerry's experiments on static rigidity are only the start of the story, too the effective rigidity when exposed to dynamic loads which induce oscillations is influenced by many more factors than just geometry, mass and young's modulus as you might expect for static loading.

But those kind of dynamic rigidity measurements are much more complex to undertake; needing reliably synchronisable time series data from several strain gauges, a method of measuring vibrational frequency in multiple planes, and a way to induce said vibrations, then data processing to marry up of all that data and disentangle the various effects from each other.

It's a major area of research in the design of high speed and ultra-accurate machine tools, with significant amounts of manufacturer resource poured into better understanding and modelling of the underlying phenomena and the ways machines can be designed to avoid (or work with!) them.

You can extend an ER11 straight shank somewhat lower than you can buy an R8 ER16 holder, giving the best visibility.

Other than visibility there's no reason to go down to a smaller ER as you can get collets down to 2mm for ER32, so you might as well maximise the visibility you're getting in a trade off.

Straight shank collet chucks are also cheaper and more easily available than R8 ones due to widespread use in CNC machines.

On the accuracy/repeatability point.

I've previously bought 2μm TIR ER11 straight shank holders to use with bearings shrink-fitted onto the shank to make a high speed spindle for an engraver, so in a small knee mill I would consider the impact of the holder minimal.

Admittedly you would need to buy a similarly good collet to really make the best of that and you could potentially see additive effects, but even if the collet was 12μm TIR then you'd still be under 0.0005" (half a thou) which would be pretty good still.

Edited By Jelly on 13/12/2022 16:50:25

Best of both worlds!

If you get a 12mm R8 collet then you also have the option of buying an ER11 or ER16 straight-shank chuck later (both sizes are available with a 12mm shank you see) to give you *even better* visibility when doing jobs requiring small milling cutters, the "chuck-on-a-bar" jobbies are about 15-25 quid should you find you do need that in the future.

I bought 2 DRO's and 5 glass scales from them, and (I'm cursing myself here, I just know it...) They have all worked perfectly and been great, for a price better than I could import identical ones via AliExpress.

I have also had 5t rated machine skates and a 5t toe jack off them, which are very good for the price.

An acquaintance bought a 15kW induction heating machine and industrial chiller from them, found it tricky to get set up, and the instruction manual comically poor, but he's had the machine running most weeks for the last year no bother.

They seem to sell goods which are on the whole adequate, for a very reasonable price.

I'm afraid that's not a correct interpretation of the regulations. You have inferred something (not unreasonably) from the wording of 4.1.1.5, but the regulations are prescriptive and must therefore be interpreted explicitly.

Packing Instructions (inclusive of P001) are contained in Paragraph 4.1.4.1.

Paragraph 3.4.1 states:

Ergo, compliance with paragraph 4.1.4.1 and thus the packing instructions is explicitly stated as not being required.

LQ wouldn't make any sense if it did require compliance with packing instructions, because then UN approved packagings would be required for retail products, which would massively drive up cost and complexity in the supply chain...

Which is the exact problem which the LQ rules were included to avoid.

​

Given the amount of undeclared DG's that all the major parcel companies know they have moving through their systems, consistently and without fail; that seems to be a fundamentally flawed assumption on which to predicate an important safety measure.

I would assume that either:

• the relevant departments don't talk to each other, so the scope of the problem hasn't been highlighted, or
• it is a risk based judgement made by the company that it would be more expensive to implement effective screening, than to bear the cost of an accident.

Edited By Jelly on 09/12/2022 14:25:30

P001 wouldn't apply to goods traveling as LQ, only paragraphs 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, and 4.1.1.4 to 4.1.1.8 apply within part 4 (packaging) for LQ.

The missing marking is the single element where there's definitively a non-compliance with the regulations, and I see how it's critical in the context of potential air-freight use (something I wouldn't have considered viable in the UK really).

​

But I am aghast (but honestly not wholly surprised) if you're saying the screening of air-freight is that lax that it wouldn't identify that goods don't match their descriptions and are in breach of the conditions of carriage...

In the context that I know first hand that RM (like every other courier) is fully aware of the sheer volume of stuff contravening the conditions of carriage across every depot in the country, and pays substantial sums of money each month to various contractors to deal with the small proportion of said materials which they actually intercept.

​

Putting my process safety hat on and thinking of the transport chain as if it was a process plant, if the only thing stopping DG's making it onto a plane relies on "the customer was honest enough to apply a LQ sticker and declare the goods" then that layer of protection might as well not exist.

Even Emmentaler doesn't have holes that big in it!

I'm assuming something weird and decorative in jewellery making, putting a wavy pattern or curved facets to the radius of the outside of the two rotating chucks on something.

The chucks are too big for rings, but clear designed to hold a ring shaped object so maybe bangles or some sort of outer piece for a medallion or other "neck jewelry" which would then have a stone setting attached inside it.

Also maybe something to do with putting external patterns on trophies or other hollowware but it doesn't seem long enough.

Weird machine in any case.

• The Inner Packagings are 500ml, which is less that the maximum 1L specified in column 3.4 so it does come under LQ.
• It's hard to say without detailed photos, but it does sound like the packagings met the LQ rules (which are much less restrictive than the packing instructions for using inner and outer packages for non-exempt DG's which you described).
• It is missing it's marking but that mark should be the LQ Mark, not a Hazard Diamond

The LQ rules were implemented to allow the easy shipment of dangerous goods packed for retail sale, largely to facilitate Distribution Center to Store carriage by high street retailers and supermarkets, the result is rules where as long as the core inner package size rules are met everything else is very permissive (allowing up to 8 tonnes per transport unit to be exempt under them for example).

.

I have to say as a DGSA this really doesn't feel like a big deal in terms of Road, Rail or Sea modes, as it's effectively a missing sticker which doesn't mean a lot to many people anyway.

Yes, it is technically non-compliant, and yes it does create some level of additional risk, but it isn't liable to cause a major incident of the kind that ADR was intended to control and mitigate...

It's much more of a occupational safety issue for RM (although again, practical experience teaches me that it's unlikely to be as dramatically dangerous as expected).

.

I can see your argument that the IATA DG rules exist for a very good reason and that shipment of DG by air has to be very closely controlled...

But if RM's screening before internal air carriage is so lax that they would allow packages containing unexpected, undisclosed liquids through to load on to a plane, then frankly there are bigger security issues at hand really.

Edited By Jelly on 08/12/2022 10:10:20