Member postings for IanT

Nigel has pretty much nailed it for you Eddie.

The leadscrew is 8tpi and I also screw-cut only using a mandrel handle (as I have not done the dog-clutch mod). I use my EW mostly for small brass work and generally use dies held in a tailstock holder but even so sometimes will half screw-cut a thread and finish it with a die - I seem to get better results with fine threads that way. It is also useful for anything where I don't have a suitable die handy.

I'd recommend you get "Screw Cutting in the Lathe" by Martin Cleve.

Regards,

IanT

PS  I've got an EW section in my photo album that may  (or may not) be useful   

Edited By IanT on 17/07/2023 09:09:44

ANO - I'm not sure linking two Uno's to provide VGA o/p is the best way to do things. More of a "Look, what I can do" Techie thing. The PicomiteVGA is a far more elegant solution to this requirement, with excellent integration of graphics into the overall system. I haven't looked too much further (into Tiny Basic) but the simple 'Hello World' example uses line numbers and a GOTO statement - so I guess it is certainly "Retro" from that point of view.

Nigel (and your Amstrad memories) - I suspect many still remember Basic as being like that - with line numbers, PEEKS & POKES, nested GOTO loops - so called Spagetti Code. If you really need them, they are still available in MMB but their use is really not recommended. I have access to named Subroutines and Functions, CASE statements and simple access to input/output functionality (no need to manipulate memory to access hardware).

However, I think ease of use is really the best feature of all. When I'm writing programmes and make a typo or mistake (a frequent occurance I'm afraid), when MMB detects my error, it drops me straight into the Editor at the faulty statement so it can be edited. Having made changes, I simply hit 'F3' and MMB saves and runs the programme again. It's very quick and intuitive to use - which for me far outweighs any issues around interpreters, speed etc. Modern micros are very (very) much faster than the 8-bit ones of forty years ago, so processing speed isn't a practical problem in most of the applications I write. Much of the time the system is just sat waiting for something to happen...

Regards,

IanT

Edited By IanT on 09/07/2023 13:41:42

Well then Dave, I guess I am a happy customer of yours!

It's a very neat way to drive one or two small DC motors, so thank you.

Regards,

IanT

Yes Nigel, easy job for a Shaper but a slot in the bottom of the groove does help 

As for Gran Turismo (whilst we are topic drifting) - I think driving my 3 litre Alfa 166 to Italy in 2010 probably qualified the car as a GT. From Metz (on the second day) it was a seven hour drive over the Alps and we arrived on the other side at Lake Orta still fresh as a daisy. A wonderful touring car and I still miss her.

It was the Alfa factory's 100th birthday but unfortunately the workers were on strike. We got to the factory to find the entrance blocked and crowds of Alfa workers and Carainieri pushing each other around in the road outside. We had a large 'Alfa 100' badge in the front window, which someone noticed. A shout went up and suddenly the crowd parted and we were waved through into the car park! One of those days you always remember.

Regards,

IanT

Edited By IanT on 20/06/2023 21:53:51

Not sure quite I understood this comment Clive.

The Rose blocks I use have the tool set to centre height 'off-machine' and for turning tools that is all that is required. You don't need to change it once set. Nor do you have to fiddle with packing when changing tool (blocks) and in fact I often touch the tool up still in the block. For 'brass' tools there is no top rake and for (small) 'steel' tools I don't use back rake either (just side and top) - so both tool types can be touched up just on the front edge without effecting height settings. This works for me (on the EW) and I don't think changing blocks is that much slower than using the QCTH - but (like many things) inexpensive Asian imports have very much changed what folk use these days - people were a little more inpecunious not so long ago...it does make a difference if you can't afford things - and sometimes old habits die hard!

Regards,

IanT

Always interesting to see your old posts pop up here.

I still use 'Rose' blocks on my EW but the holding arrangements have changed very slightly over time. There is now a restraint on the rear of the tool holder to stop the tool block moving under cutting pressure (mainly happens if the block's base isn't flat). The top part of the tool holder can also be angled by removing the cap screw - but it normally holds the tool blocks at right angles to the lathe axis (or face - tools can be clamped in two positions). So very simple to make tool blocks and easy to use. Not for everyone perhaps but the original QCTH is now only used for a few tools that can't be fitted to the blocks.

Regards,

IanT

PS Keep meaning to make a lever replacement for the large clamping nut but it never quite seems to get to the top of the round TUIT list....

Sorry for precising your request Paul but your requirements seemed very similar to mine (at the time I was looking for a suitable torch) which is why I suggested the Bullfinch 404. As Bullfinch state (in terms of the temperature of the "flame" ) - the 404 sits between an 'ordinary' propane torch and a MAPP torch.

They advise that a propane torch "under general conditions" operates at 800C but can get upto about 1000C. The equivelent temperatures for the 404 are given as being between 950C and about 1200C. I use SIFbronze No 1 which has a melting point between 875-895 Degrees C. Clearly (as Jason has demonstrated) a propane torch can melt SIFbronze but (in my experience) the 404 makes SIFbronzing that bit easier. I also feel (perhaps subjectively) that it is quicker when silver soldering too.

As Nick suggests, the heat output (Kw power) point seems to me to be a little bit misleading. The Sievert head that Jason used has a power rating of 7.7Kw but it also uses about twice the gas (600g/hour) as the 404. A higher power head can obviously replace any heat loss (from the part) more easily than a lower powered one.

The mid-power head I normally use (4104) is a 4.76Kw head (and uses 340g/hour). There was a larger Bullfinch head (4105) available that produced 6.16Kw (and used 440g/hour). Clearly the 4105 produced more "power" than the smaller 4104 but both heads operate at the same temperature. In fact you can get a lower powered head for the 404 (4103) that is a 1.84Kw (133gm/hour) alternative. So different (heating) powers but the same temperature range. Clearly, larger parts need more power but this is also very much subject to how well you can conserve heat during the braze.

If you need to do larger parts then perhaps (as Jelly suggests) welding is a better approach - less so for small (more detailed?) parts though.

That's it. You asked for our thoughts Paul and these are mine. Others may differ in theirs of course.

Regards,

IanT

Below - one of two endplates for an engine-building frame I built from a laser-cut kit. All the sub-assemblies were SIFbronzed but the final assembly was admittedly done using silver solder (I didn't have a brazing hearth to keep the heat in at the time). It's 6" x 4" x 7" (in 2mm mild steel) but all done with the Bullfinch.

Well, I'm not claiming to be an expert Bill, although I have attended a welding course, which included oxy-acetylene brazing, which is where I first used SIFbronze. I have also owned the 404 for quite a while now and been very happy with it's performance. In practical terms, the Bullfinch can manage brazing work that I couldn't manage with one of my 'disposable' gas torchs or with the heads I have for my Sievert (like) torch.

All I can do is suggest that Bullfinch probably do know what they are talking about and they state this in relation to their Bullfinch Autotorch (e.g. the 404).

Regards,

IanT

Technical information: flames

Although the flame temperature of an LPG (propane or butane) air burner at the hottest point is approximately 1900^oC, the actual temperature a heated component can attain is much lower than this and depends on the burner, and the thermal properties of the component and its surroundings.

Acetylene-air and MAP//Pro gas-air will give flame temperatures 200-300^oC above this and component temperatures 200-300^oC higher too.

The Autotorch brazing burners can give temperatures up to 950^oC under general conditions and up to 1200^oC in ideal conditions only. They can therefore bronze braze under most conditions as well as being able to make faster soft and silver soldered joints. They are particularly good for hard/silver soldering of copper pipes.

The Autotorch 2300 series burners, the Autotorch System 2 burners and the Standard torch burners can give temperatures up to 800^oC under general conditions. They are, therefore, ideal for soft and silver soldering and lead welding, but cannot be used for bronze brazing.

The Autotorch acetylene burners can give temperatures up to 1100^oC undergeneral conditions and 1350^oC under ideal conditions and can be used to do bronze brazing as well as the other general uses of torches discussed above.

MAP//Pro gas used on the FirePower, AutoPerformer and Performer torches will generally achieve temperatures between the Autotorch brazing burners and the Autotorch acetylene burners.

PS

A useful source of SIFbronze No1 is here.

SIFbronze No 1

No connection except satisified customer etc. Interesting to note that the price of SIF doesn't seem to have gone up too much - whereas silver solder....

Regards,

IanT

Paul,

I've owned a Bullfinch 404 brazing torch for some years now and routinely SIF bronze small (ferrous) parts in preference to using silver solder (which I do use for non-ferrous parts). The 404 does all my normal brazing work, although I do have a Sievert-like torch for boiler work.

The 404 uses just propane but manages to achieve a higher heat (over 950C) than a conventional propane torch. I have a few photos in my albums (under Brazing) that show a few parts brazed with this torch. Below is a part that I fabricated from laser cut mild steel and SIF bronzed together. It was an early attempt and clearly not perfect but that was down to me and not the torch. It's a very strong joint (stronger than silver soldering) and much cheaper than using silver solder.

Bullfinch 404 Brazing Torch

The price has gone up a bit since I purchased mine but if you braze small parts regularly then the cost is quickly made up by using normal propane and SIF rod (£31.20 inc VAT for approx 60 x 1 metre rods) instead of silver solder.

Regards,

IanT

SE doesn't 'autosave' (which is good in my view) but you can set up a 'save' prompt Lee. The default seems to be 60 minutes, which you may wish to decrease.

Set up a Reminder to save Documents

1. With a document open in Solid Edge, on the File menu, click Settings→Options, and then click the Save tab.

2. Choose whether you want to be prompted to:

   • Save all documents at a specific time interval.

     Create backup copies of modified, unsaved documents in the current Solid Edge session.

   • You can specify that you want to Backup model files or Backup Draft files

3. Optionally, you can select Prompt for File Properties on first save to have the Properties dialog box be displayed on the initial save of a part, sheet metal document, assembly, and draft.

SE always asks you if you wish to save on exiting (e.g. closing) a drawing

Regards,

IanT

So you don't want to refurish mine too Dave?

Regards,

IanT

PS Bo'un is thinking 'internal' pump - I was imagining an 'external' pump. Mine (Primus) screw on the top and the pump body sticks out of the blow-torch top - it's not inside...

If the pump body/tube has to pass through/into a fitting on the body, then a patch probably won't work unless the fitting is the generous side and any gap can be taken up by the seals....

Regards,

IanT

Soft and hard solders don't usually mix that well Jon.

If someone has already been trying for a repair with soft (probably leaded) solder, then a different approach may be required. If you can "sweat" a thin brass (or tinplate) cover over the crack, it will probably not look as pretty but it should hold. Soft solder won't hold very well in terms of a simple 'butt' joint but a patch will have a much larger surface to bond with the tube (being a 'lap' joint). It's generally easier to do too, provided you tin both surfaces carefully before attempting to sweat them together.

Again we are going for 'working' rather than 'mantlepiece'

Regards,

IanT

Well, I've never done this but I would think it is do'able.

Off the top of my head (without going down the shed and looking) I think both my old blowlamps have removable pumps. So the tube could be dis-assembled from the main blowlamp body and given a good physical clean before a suitable dunk in citric acid. I would use silver solder (445 0.5mm wire) and (dependant on the tube thickness) try to clean the crack sides by cutting a 'V' with a sharp diamond-end graver tool. Place small pallets (bits) of solder along the crack (to avoid too much solder getting into the barrel) and lot's of flux. If you don't use too much solder, the inside should be fine. Oh, and heat from the other side of the crack, fanning the flame (don't linger).

It's pumping air, so I wouldn't think it's a dangerous repair to do. If you don't get a complete seal, then it's going to be a bit harder to pump up to pressure but mine have leather seals that are pretty forgiving. Of course you may get a little spread of silver solder on the outside but if you just want something to polish for the mantlepiece, then don't try to repair it.

Perhaps not the best place to start for a beginner though Jon - especially if you've not brazed anything before. Thin brass is pretty easy to melt with high heat, in fact so are thick bits too. I've managed to do both. 

Regards,

IanT

Edited By IanT on 30/05/2023 14:50:04

Yes David, manufacturers were very 'loose' in terms of "scale" and approximations were used.

In the history of Gauge '3' - early 2.5" gauge stock was built to 1/2" scale (with 3.5" gauge being 3/4" and 5" being 1" "scale). This persisted until sometime between the great wars, when the scale in general use for G3 changed to 17/32" . Not everyone followed suite and some very well known 2.5" builders continued with 1/2" scale (CM Keiller for example). Gauge '2' never really went through this evolution as (stated in the article) it fell out of fashion fairly quickly with the larger retailers tending to simplify the choice of gauges offered.

With regards "True Scale" that is very simply stated as being the track ratio between prototype & model. In UK 'standard' gauge terms that involves dividing 56.5" (4ft 8.5" ) by the model track gauge in inches. You can then use that scale ratio to come up with the "scale" normally referred to (or to find out how far adrift it is). So G2 (track ratio 1:28.25) is 0.425" (10.8mm) per foot "true scale" (with 7/16" being 0.4375" (11.11mm) per foot). It's interesting to note that G2 at 7/16th was over-scale, whereas G3 at 1/2" was underscale. One of the drivers to moving to 17/32" in G3 was the desire for larger mechanical clearances but this pressure would not have been present in G2.

So there we have it. All the larger 'scenic' gauges quickly declined after WW2, with the smaller "Table-Top" model railway scales becoming not only far more affordable but also practical for indoor layouts. In terms of scenic garden railways, 16mm (N/G on 45/32mm track) was the first to 're-emerge' followed by G1 and then (some 20 years later) by G3. We are all constrained of course by the availability of track to run on but also by the availability of new product. It's taken over 30 years to build G3 back to the point where it is no longer just a 'scratch builders' scale with a good range of commercial support. With the advent of laser and 3D print technology some of these barriers are being reduced but I think G2 is unlikely to be anything but a Collectors gauge looking forward - but of course a few dedicated enthusiasts can make a huge difference (as was the case with G3).

I wish them every success.

Regards,

IanT

Edited By IanT on 23/05/2023 11:23:23

I was interested to see John Arrowsmith's article about Gauge '2' but I don't think his description of Gauge '2' originally being 64mm gauge or a scale ratio of 1:22.5 is correct.

The 'gauges' introduced by Marklin in 1891 were Gauge I (48mm), Gauge II (54mm) and Gauge III (75mm). It should be noted however that these measurements were made from the centre of each rail (and not the inside rail edges). If we assume a common rail width of 3mm, then (by todays standards) we would call them 45mm, 51mm and 72mm respectively. So Markilin Gauge 'II' was 51mm which converts almost exactly to 2" (2.008" ). Nor was the scale 1:22.5 - it was 1:28.25 (as a comparison, Gauge '3' is correctly scaled at 1:22.6  - with LGB 'G' being 1:22.5 (Metre-gauge on 45mm track)

Please also note that Marklin Gauge 'III' is not the same as the (UK) Gauge '3'

I think the confusion with respect to Gauge '2' being 64mm probably arises from the fact that the German IG Spur II group use 64mm track for it's standard gauge stock (and 45mm (Spur IIm) & 32mm (Spur IIe) track for it's narrow gauge stock - all scaled at 1:22.5) See IG Spur II for further detail...

The early days of "Toy" railways was very confusing in terms of the gauge 'standards' , with many vendors using either different names for the same gauge or different gauges with the same name. There is a brief history of this confusion on the G3S website. See A Little Toy History

However, In the UK the five standard model gauges were recommended by a subcommittee of the Society of Model Engineers on 1st February 1899 and (of course) these gauges were stated in Imperial measure. Now you can convert these gauges into metric (as is now common in G1 and the smaller scales) but they were originally all defined in Inches. So G3 is not 64mm, it's 2.5" or if you must use millimetres then 63.5mm - not because the 0.5mm is crucial but because it confuses two different based standards - Metric & Imperial.

Anyway, not to detract from an interesting article - just to trying to correct a small detail before it becomes part of the accepted 'lore'.

Regards,

IanT

Edited By IanT on 23/05/2023 00:22:44

Thank you Nigel, I'm travelling at the moment, so not too much 'free' time to dig into things...

I found the "Selector 2D Properties" and set it for "2D for Model and Paper space" (which would seem to be exactly what I need) but it still drops into 3D mode if I use the wrong mouse button, which is both annoying and hard to understand why? I guess it will need more time to investigate.

With regards 2D to 3D - SE has a "Create 3D" feature (you need to load a 'Draft' document to activate it) which allows a (3D) 'Part' file to be generated from a DXF which has been loaded into a 'Draft' document. Details here if anyone is interested:

"Create 3D" (2D to 3D in Solid Edge)

Regards,

IanT

How do I switch 3D "Off" Nigel? Looked last night but couldn't find it... (have to relearn my TC keyboard shortcuts again too). Part of problem is that I'd customised/simplified the TC UI quite a bit and cannot remember everything I did now (TC on my old laptop looks quite different to this 'reloaded' one)

I will be moving some of my 2D to SE - hence the need to tidy things up a bit before doing so...in a bit of a rush at the moment but I've certainly done this in the past.

Regards,

IanT

I've just had a very weird experience. Needed to revisit some old TurboCAD work I did many years ago. However, I didn't have TC loaded on my new laptop. So I dug out the USB stick with my TC16 stuff on it and (finally) found the email from Mr Tracy with the serial number and actvation code. All loaded OK and then up popped a window asking if I'd like the available update? Thought it might be a good idea, so downloaded that. All good - fired it up and....

I have no idea what I'm doing - it's like I'm looking at a completely alien CAD system. First, it seems to have defaulted to 3D mode (I don't remember that at all) and second - I've forgotton eveything I thought I knew so well about TC (after using it for some 20+ years! ) . I'm sure it will all come back but (after 3 years away) all I want to do right now is run back to Solid Edge as quickly as possible.

(Sorry - back to Nigel's Alibre adventures)

IanT