Member postings for Dave S

I would not worry about comments like don’t use the “cheap Chinese” movements.
I would carry on and learn on them.

Much like machine tools there is a significant section of society that believes cheap Chinese = terrible quality junk.

In my experience a working watch movement cannot be junk of that sort, although the finish might not be first class Swiss.

Tool’s however are a different matter. They are an extension of your hands, but with less integration.
That said my favourite tweezers are not expensive - something like £5 a pair ( Vetus no3 and 5 from here - **LINK** .

I also do surface mount prototyping and rework with the same tweezers :

That’s on a standard 0.1” piece of veroboard and I had to hand place and solder those connections…
Better magnification is more important than tweezers that cost 30 odd quid each - *provided* the tweezers you use are good enough.

Dave

A small amount of poking later : **LINK**

John was running D1-5 not 6, but the principal is the same

Dave

IIRC the late Sir John Stevenson of this parish used to run D1-6 with only 3 pins in it.

The pins pull the taper together. 3 is most likely sufficient for most uses.

Somewhere on the internet (might be the home shop machinist bbs site) there is a long discussion about this and how 3 pins are plenty enough based on the strength of them.

Dave

Good news and an interesting thing to file away for next time I have a blobby print

Dave

I’ve used DD haulage in the past to move my tools:

**LINK**

Dave

Looks like your retract setting is too low, so the filament oozes as the head is moving from one move to another.

Usually a setting in the slicer I think

Dave

And varies with collet clamping diameter as well as collet size.

Useful link to regofix doc: **LINK**

Dave

I’ve only skimmed the video, but it looks about right:

**LINK**

Dave

The rubbery mesh draw liner stuff is quite good. Stuff falls into the holes and doesn’t bounce back out.

If you are “pinging” out of tweezers I suggest you dress them and also practice manipulating small nuts and bolts - 12BA are cheap enough in a small packet to practice stacking, moving and rotating, with the bonus that they are none critical if they ping off.

Have a poke about at the watchmaking forum on WatchUSeek for more tips and stuff.

Dave

I suspect the increasing use of fibre tips is related to the cost of manufacture.
The use of any pen for precision drawing is obsolete.

Technically you should always use a raised edge for any “wet” lining.
Properly used Rotring pens are less prone to smudge that dip pens, and no more prone that fibre tips.

One thing with Isographs and other tube nib pens is that you must hold the pen consistently, and preferably at right angles to the page for the line to be correct. Fibre tips flex, but “tube” pens don’t

Managed to complete the second part without any mishaps  The “backing” is 30mm square, so hopefully adequately rigid.

The D bit technique is one I got from James Harvey’s Machine Shop Trade Secrets. It’s a good book of short tips and tricks. I misremembered it slightly - he uses a ball nose, which presumably is a better geometry. He also likes to make the cutters hexagonal rather than round for some reason.

The important bit tho I’m sure is having a rigid setup and pecking a thou at a time:

Mods - if there is any sort of copyright issue then feel free to remove the pictures- I think it’s ok for educational sharing.

I’ve used this truck a couple of times on taps, but also to rescue a watch case where I snapped a tiny carbide drill in 316 stainless. In that case the cutter was bigger and I sleeved the hole, but the D bit did the job, with the tiny drill shattering as the pecking happened.

Dave

Edited By Dave S on 18/04/2022 14:44:00

Whilst I mostly just wanted to moan to a group of people who would understand there are a lot of useful

comments here.

The holes are thru, drilled with the tapping drill I always use. Whilst I only need a couple of diameters of engagement the back of the hole can poke through. I try and avoid blind holes if possible it just adds to the pucker factor…

The taps are serial ones - so the taper tap is actually smaller diameter, then the 2nd and then the thread is fully formed by the last tap. I have been using this style for metric holes for a long time, purchased from Arc.
That’s one of the reasons the thread look shot - they are not full depth.

The green goo is Trefolex. I find it helps loads.

I would have used M6, but the linear rails are designed for M5.

I managed to get the rest tapped using the older set of the same taps.

Dave

I made it from a snapped PCB drill. I have a Deckel S0 grinder.

Dave

HSS from a reputable source. Nearly new, probably done under a dozen holes.

Just one of those things I guess, no difference in the procedure from how I’d normally work.

Some pics:

Carbide D bit:

Peck drill 1 thou at a time…

Then pick out the remains:

Rescued, thread ok and part usable.
It’s good that this is possible but a trick I would rather not need…

Dave

I have just snapped another M5 tap on my current project.

<Sigh>

Now I get to practice tap removal again.

That is a skill I wish I didn’t get the opportunities to practice.

Dave

Rotring are the thoroughbred horse here. There is no unicorn

Dave

I was hoping to not need to fill at all - more of a backup plan in case of vibration.. So I don’t have sand (or epoxy) currently.
How would you go about putting the threaded holes in if that was a solution? Seems like you’d want to fill it first, but then the epoxy / filler fill is in the way and not a simple machining job to tap.

Dave

I’m building a CNC mill. I though I had it planned, but now I’m having a bit of a which one sort of dilemma.
The basic structure is cast iron base with linear rails for the Y, then twin columns with rails for the Z, bridged with 2 pieces of 50mm equal angle (about 6mm thick) and some more linear rails for the X.

The base and bridge I’m pretty happy with. The structure is stiff enough - more massive - than the rails, so I’m confident that the rails will conform to the structure when bolted down. The rails are, as expected in the free state not straight in either plane.
The columns I’m a bit less sure of…
They are 80mm square hot rolled welded box, 3mm nominal thickness. Being none precision steel by the time I’ve made then flat I’m assuming the flat that the rails will bolt to will be about 2.5mm thick.
Seems like that might not be enough to pull the 20 mm rails flat.

Given I haven’t yet done the make precision work on the columns now is a good time to switch if required.
I could brace the inside with some more 50mm angle, which would give me the box section benefit in that it’s 80mm box, with added stiffness where the rails are.
I also have a length of 200mm channel which I could split and use as the columns instead. That would give unequal angle of about 60x100, which is less than 80 in one direction and more in the other. It is however 10mm thick, so probably stiff enough to hold the rails flat. Downside is I would have to cut it in half and that’s a lot of effort compared with backing the box with a length of 50mm.

I was planning on filling the box with sand to dampen any “ringing” which of course is not possible with an open angle.

Thoughts please, I’m probably overthinking this hugely, but there you go…

Dave

Im not a lawyer and have never played one on tv... disclaimer out of the way....

I don't think what John says is correct.

The process by which a thing is designed does not matter in copyright infringement. What matters is if the thing is a copy. So John's illustration is backwards imo.

As for the original question first one:

You have designed a vice. This is most likely not a "copy". There are features of a vice which are required for it to function. These features cannot be subject to copyright claim, hence most vices look quite similar. If a vice has a design feature that is aesthetic then copying that would be infringement.

Second one: You have made a CAD model of an existing published design. You are not trying to pass off as your own design, so I don't thinks there would be any issues - the whole design was published into the public domain with the clear intention that people would use it. Give credit and ask Harold if he has objections if you want (I would just because it's polite to do so) but if you wish to publish a CAD model of a design the 'thing' you are publishing is your work, based on Harolds work. So again I don't believe that there is any infringement.

Third one: Is much like the first. You have taken an idea and used it for your own design. It doesn't sound like a "copy" but an improvement. Features like removable tool holders are required for the design to function ago are not subject to copyright protection (patent protection is a different matter.... But I don't see a patent on the design)

Intellectual property is a wide area, but basically my understanding is copyright protects the "look" of a thing and patents protect how a thing works (in the UK anyway)

Dave

A very simple, low cost solution to a wobbly folding table that you cannot replace is to work on the floor.

Making an 1 1/2” thick piece is unlikely to fix your problem.
3/4” is already quite heavy and very stiff.

By doubling up you double the weight but the stiffness will only go from very stiff to really very stiff…

If 3/4” is not stiff enough then you really have to question the supports or the force you are putting in.

Doubling the weight on a suspect support is dubious from what little information you have supplied.

Dave