By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for Peter G. Shaw

Here is a list of all the postings Peter G. Shaw has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

<< First < Prev 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Next > Last >>
Thread: M E W articles on truespace
17/04/2010 15:20:01
Jeff,
 
My understanding from the first article was that it is not an engineering drawing program, just a program for fancy pictures. (That is not meant to be derogatory by the way, it's just that I can't remember how Linton Wedlock described it.) However, Wedlock does then say that it is possible to create engineering drawings, but it is rather more difficult. Whether they are 2D or 3D I can't remember.
 
For myself, when I realised how big the learning curve would be, and that my existing CAD program does have fancy picture capabilities, then I reasoned that I would be better off learning my existing program.
 
This does not negate the value of the series because it does show what can be achieved.
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
Thread: Clarke CL300 Speed control
16/04/2010 20:56:35
One suggestion I have come across is to remove the electronics completely and use a 500VA variac transformer and a suitably rated bridge rectifier to drive the motor.
 
But wouldn't that mess up the torque and speed characteristicks?
 
Regards

Peter G. Shaw
Thread: M E W articles on truespace
16/04/2010 20:52:49
It is possible to find v7.6, ie an earlier version. I downloaded it yesterday.
 
There is a picture in the first article by Linton which shows the opening screen. It shows v7.6 in the upper left corner.
 
Having said that, I also have v7.61 beta 8. Again, the opening screen, other than the version number, is identical to the magazine. I haven't proceeded any further as I do not intend to learn this program as I have already have a CAD program capable of producing 3D images, or so I believe!
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
Thread: raising blocks
16/04/2010 20:42:19
Tubal Cain in his book Workholding in the Lathe (WSP15) describes making his own jacking screws. I assume that these will be similar to what you want.
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
Thread: Disassembling of Minimill / X2-clone / XJ-12 Ballbearings
16/04/2010 20:38:37
Hi Marcus,
 
Not necessarily in the same order that you put...
 
My machine had exactly the same bearings as yours, not as in the manual.
 
I haven't looked into it, but I have a suspicion that headstock bearings for the C3 lathe may be the same - see Arc Euro Trade website. If I am correct, then I seem to recall Dave Fenner changing them (on the C3 that is) and describing it in MEW somewhere.
 
Now, I notice from your photos that the bottom bearing (7206AC) has come apart during the disassembly. Mine did not, ie the complete bearing came out with the shaft. However, a friend of mine has the same mill, Warco MiniMill, and only last week had to replace his gears. Just like you, his bottom bearing came apart. Now, I am not an expert, but it doesn't seem right to me that these bearings should come apart like this. They are, after all ball bearings and I thought that once assembled they should stay assembled. I am aware though, that on bicycles that various ball bearings do in fact dismantle quite easily, but I think these of ours are meant to be sealed. Anyway, if you do succeed in changing to taper rollers then please let us, especially me, know because when my gears next break, I will wish to change them.
 
You comment on a lack of grease. This is exactly what my friend found, but I do not remember on mine.
 
Stripping the machine down is reasonably easy, even without the gear puller as you have. We changed my friends gears for metal ones that I had in stock ready, and reassembled in less than one day. It's just a case of being logical.
 
Now onto the fine feed mechanism.
Your message above leads me to suspect that you do not know how it is meant to work. Please forgive me if this is wrong.
The finefeed knob via the long shaft turns the worm wheel inside the support block, item 159. This in turn rotates the bevel gear, item 155. This is shown in your photograph. The drive from the bevel gear is via the dog teeth onto the triple hand lever, item 154 which slides backwards and forwards along the pinion shaft item 157. The hand lever item 154 remains in either of two positions by means of a ball bearing item 149 (held by spring 150 and screw 151), there being two indentations in the end of the pinion shaft 157. Drive between the hand lever and the pinion shaft is by means of the keyway item 156.
So, to engage fine feed, the triple hand lever is pushed in towards the headstock to engage the dogteeth. The fine feed knob thus turns the triple lever slowly. To disengage finefeed, the triple hand lever is pulled out.
On both my mill, and my friends mill, the fine feed did not work. The manual did not even mention it, and it wasn't until I downloaded a document from the Little Machine Shop in America that I found out how to make it work. What my friend and I discovered is that there is a gross misalignment between the the support block and the bracket adjacent to the fine feed knob such that the support block requires shimming out along its front edge (as you look at it from the front). Furthermore, the support block housing is too short for the actual worm itself, causing binding of the worm inside the block. This is cured by, in my case, adding washers between the end cover plate and the support block thus giving clearance for the worm to rotate. In addition, my friend discovered that his was seized up due to gunge.
 
Regards,
 
Peter
 
 
Thread: Excel milling machines
09/04/2010 22:23:41
Hi,
 
I came across this firm a few years ago, indeed they were exhibiting at one of our shows. They had a lathe I was interested in which had not been badge engineered. (The one I eventually bought was the same lathe but badge engineered.) Hence I suspect they are nothing more that an importer, just like all the other firms.
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
Thread: Conversion
09/04/2010 22:20:07
Hi,
 
Funnily enough I was recently reading Tubal Cain's book on Workshop Drawing (WSP 13) and somewhere in that book he comments about converting to metric. Unfortunately, I can't now find the reference. Anyway, from memory, the gist of it was that converting say 3/8in (eg a drilled hole) to metric becomes 9.525mm which in turn then implies an almost impossible level of accuracy, to say nothing about the availability of such a drill. It is important to realise that quoting 3/8in implies a specific level of accuracy which is actually less than the decimal equivalent (0.375in) and which in turn is less accurate than the direct metric conversion mentioned above.
 
What this means is that you would have to convert every imperial dimension to the equivalent level of accuracy of the original. And not forgetting any matching component, and any bolts, rivets, rods etc.
 
In theory, it sounds nice to convert, but in practice for something like this, I think one should stay in the original measurement scheme unless you are prepared to do virtually a redesign.
 
Just my thoughts,
 
Peter G. Shaw
Thread: Milling Machine
09/04/2010 21:58:43
Hi,
 
Do a search on this forum. There are a number of threads dealing with the X2 (and it's clones) and possible problems.
Briefly, the possible problems are:
Breaking of the plastic internal gears. Note that Arc Euro have suitable metal replacements.
Electronic control board failure. Note that some machines have an American control board, eg the Amadeal version and my own Warco MiniMill. These may be more reliable.
 
In respect of the Warco MiniMill, I now have experience of two of these machines. Both have suffered from seizure of the fine-feed vertical movement - cured by shimming. 
Also, both Warco machines are best described as a kit of parts requiring fettling. David White in MEW has found problems with the X0 X-Y base & the X1 mill. He suggests methods to improve them.

The suggestion that the MiniMill is best treated as a kit of parts requiring fettling has also been said by other people in respect of other X2 mills and clones.
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
 
Note to David Clark 1.
 
Given that questions re the X2 mills and their clones keep arising, plus the information in various threads, it does make me think that an article combining all the information about these machines, their manufacturing sources, clones, and known problems and cures is perhaps long overdue.
 
The question is, where would such an article be located? 
Thread: How big to make a chip tray?
05/04/2010 21:44:35
Hi John,
 
I made my own trays for use underneath my lathe & milling machine. They are made of 1mm sheet steel for the base, and 25 x 3 x 3 angle for the edges. I used pop rivets to fasten the steel sheet to the inside of the angle iron having first partially drilled a wider hole from the outside of the angle so that the pop rivet (inserted from the inside) could expand into the widened hole and the excess filed off flush. I also used a strip of bent 1mm x 20mm x 80ish mm on the inside of the corners to hold the vertical sections of the angle iron together. This strip was also fastened with pop rivets. Hardly beautiful, but very functional. The whole assembly was then painted with a very smelly green two coat type paint (avoids giving tradenames, does that!).
 
In the case of the lathe, this meant that the steel sheet base was 3mm above the bench top, but as I wanted a large (75ish mm) diameter washer on top of the wooden bench anyway, it was no big deal.
 
In respect of the milling machine, the size was dictated by the top of the trolley I was mounting it on: it had to be a minimum of 25mm wider on each edge so that the sheet steel base sat flat on the sub-base.
 
In both instances the tray is clamped in place by the fixing bolts for the machine concerned.
 
The milling machine tray is 780 x 520 mm with the front 100 mm in front of the base of the milling machine, a Warco MiniMill.
 
Off machine, both trays are a bit wobbly - as you might expect. But once clamped down, become very rigid indeed.
 
 Hope that helps,
 
Peter G. Shaw
Thread: Cad for complete beginners (CAD for idiots)
21/03/2010 12:36:51
From John Stevenson:
 
Cad is like religion, one copy will not suit everyone. It's no good taking someone's recommendation that theirs is the best program. You can see this in the replies above where many different programs have been touted.
 
CAD is a learning curve, how steep depends on the user but the first part is to download at least 4 or 5 demo's and spend at least a full night with each to see how the way it draws suits you .
 
If you are not prepared to put this level of work into finding one you will never get the best out of a program. It sound s a lot of work but once you are proficient with a program it pays back in spades as regards accuracy and production.
 
I would totally agree with the above comments. Although I use Design Cad, and have done for a good few years now, and am reasonably conversant with the major features, even now I will struggle if trying to do something new.
 
What this also means is that I am not prepared to swap to another program. Having been through one learning curve, I don't need another. Having said that, the reason why I did not get on with TurboCad was because I was already spoiled by Draft Choice, which despite it being a shareware program, was in my opinion better written and better featured than the TurboCad program of the same age. Nevertheless, given the advances in all CAD programs, I imagine that anyone coming to TurboCad with no preconceived notions may well find it OK. At least it is easy to find.

About Draft Choice for Windows. This was the program I first learned on and which I found very good and easy to use. It also had an excellent (no other word for it) tutorial. In particular, as a confirmed disliker of the mouse, this program enabled me to apply most, if not all, commands from the keyboard, (I find that keyboard action is generally so much faster than faffing around with the mouse.) and when it eventually failed to work following computer & operating system upgrade, I had to find a replacement. This is where Design Cad came in. I was fortunate enough to find a cheap enough copy to risk scrapping it (£13 inc p&p) and was initially very much intimidated by all the available functions, but I did find that there were a lot of similarities to Draft Choice, sufficient for me to make the transfer reasonably easily.
 
I did not find Allycad, but if I had, I may well have been put off by the cost, although I do note that there is a file size limited, but otherwise fully functional free download. In respect of the size limitation, most of my files are less than 100kb, but I do have a small number approaching the 300kb limit, and one of over 1Mb - and none of my drawings are by any means complex. I suspect this 300kb limit may well become a serious limitation.
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
 
Edit.
Also agree with Circlip. Don't pay lot's of money. Even my favourite can be obtained for £25. Have a look on ebay. Read any forums you can find about whichever program you are interested in. What you may find is that one particular earlier version is rated on the forums as being better made than later versions -  and will be much, much cheaper. Also don't buy the latest version - it may well have unknown bugs in it. 
 

Edited By Peter G. Shaw on 21/03/2010 12:41:09

20/03/2010 17:36:22
Re the CAD program in MEW. Please note that this is NOT a true CAD program. Even Linton Wedlock, the series author, says so. It is a 3D MODELLING program with limited CAD capabilities.
 
Without wishing to denigrate Linton's efforts, indeed he has shown just what can be done,  the program that I use, DesignCad 3D Max, has 3D modelling capabilities, perhaps not as good as TrueSpace, but nevertheless it is there. And if you look at the adverts for my program, it does show all sorts of wierd and wonderful 3D creations. I imagine that other 3D CAD programs will have similar possibilities.
 
The problem is that if you need to do 3D modelling, it will take you a long time to get to grips with it, indeed Linton himself says that he has been learning for 13 years. Therefore if, as Ray admits, you are at the bottom of the learning curve, perhaps you would be better advised to obtain a true CAD program which has 3D capabilities, working in 2D initially and then as familiartity increases, move onto 3D and 3D modelling.
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw

20/03/2010 14:09:37
As Circlip has said, there have been a number of threads already on this topic, in fact there is a specific section for this topic.
 
Anyway, what I would suggest is that you beg, borrow, or (better not go there it's illegal!) a copy of DAG Brown's book "CAD for Model Engineers", Workshop Practice Series No. 29. This will give you an idea of what can be achieved using CAD, but note that the program Brown uses is no longer available.
 
Presumably you already know something about engineering drawing, but if not, then Tubal Cain's book "Workshop Drawing", Workshop Practice Series No. 13 will help.
 
As regards software packages, the chances are you will find as many variations as there are model engineers, but for what it's worth, these are my thoughts:
 
I have tried TurboCad - and couldn't get on with it. Other people have had the same problem. The only other packages I have knowledge of are DraftChoice for Windows - now defunct, and Design Cad 3D Max which I have found very easy to use, and for which not too old versions may be obtained relatively cheaply, eg version 18 for £24.99 where the latest version (20) is in excess of £60. Unfortunately it is difficult to find, partly I believe as it is now produced and sold by Imsi, who also produce the TurboCad program and who push TurboCad almost the exclusion of anything else.
 
What I would suggest is that you download trial packages and try them out. You may find that some of the trial packages are actually much older versions of the latest program - TurboCad comes to mind here as I ended up with a fully working copy of version 4 when the latest version was either 7 or 8.
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
 
 
Thread: MEW 162 - Phoenix Battery Drills
18/03/2010 19:16:10
 
... and it would leave the pins connected to the battery exposed to landing on anything metal. If you haven't tried shorting out a 12v battery with low internal resistance, you should give it a go! (although by the sounds of it you already have...)
 
Of course I have. Hasn't everyone? Especially at 'tech' during Principles classes when learning about valves with 2V heaters!
 
But seriously though, any shorting I've done has always been accidental and resulted in, at worst, a blown fuse. I have never seen the results of any such serious shorting out, although I've heard plenty of anecdotes about it. Perhaps my training in telecomms was good enough to avoid such mishaps.
 
As regards the car, this was a towbar that was already fitted and wired when I bought the car. It turned out that the power wiring for the connectors was routed under the car in and out of various points between the sockets on the towbar, and the fuse & relay at the front of the engine compartment. What happened was that after a few years, vibration, possible cable movement by mechanics, something like that anyway, and the cable ended up rubbing against a sharp edge. Eventually the sheath and insulation gave way and pop went the fuse. Connect up the caravan, and the caravan battery ends up being connected back down the car wiring to the sharp edge, hence to earth, and pop went the caravan fuse. Which caused no end of head scratching until I realised what had happened. To find the fault, I ended up wiring a piezo-electric sounder across the blown car fuse and moved the wiring about until the sounder operated. No problems after a good repair.
 
Giving a friendly warning of possible problems is one thing. Going overboard and complaining that something experimental is dangerous and should not even be shown is quite another. Especially when said article gives a recommended alternative.  This is a hobby, and we have to allow people in the hobby to think for themselves.
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw

18/03/2010 17:40:03
John,
 
Way back in the '70's there was an article in Wireless World about Nicads and their failure mode. The author did indeed reckon that the best way to treat Ni-Cads was to treat them rough, ie make them work, and to ensure that they were fully discharged before recharging. The same author also gave a method of reviving "dead" cells. Basically, it involved reverse blasting them with a heavy current to melt the internal short-circuit that caused the failure. His idea was there was nothing to lose as these cells were destined for the scrap heap anyway.
 
The major problem though, is that you need access to each cell to ensure that it is fully discharged and not reverse charged as can happen in a multi-cell battery. I do recall though, seeing somewhere a suggestion that a diode across each cell would stop that problem. The same access problem also occurs when attempting to revive "dead" cells.
 
The so-called memory effect, ie low capacity, is cured by a full discharge and recharge cycle on each individual cell. Again, access problems prevent this from being easily done.

Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
18/03/2010 15:56:37
On further reflection about my plug/socket reversal idea, it would, I assume, be possible for someone to use an extension lead to connect a battery box direct to the mains.
 
I've got to say this, because if I don't someone else will, I have no doubt, point it out to me, but we are surely getting into the realms of fantasy now.
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
18/03/2010 15:14:15
Re: my reversal suggestion.
 
Given that the "plug" would, I assume, be hard connected, ie screwed to the battery box, it would, I suggest be somewhat difficult to connect the battery to the mains! Indeed, I would suggest that only someone with a death wish would be able to do it.
 
As I said, putting the "socket" on the end of a flying lead from the drill would prevent anyone from connecting the drill directly to the mains.
 
Exposure of the "live" pins is a possibility, but this is only from the battery. And before anyone tries to tell me about the energy potential of lead-acid batteries,  may I remind you that my career was in telecommunications which run, or at least used to run, on 50V DC, normally from rectifiers, with a large, indeed very large lead-acid battery backup, and depending on size of exchange using many hundreds of amps as a normal matter.
 
Actually I was aware of that when I wrote what I did, and it was meant a bit tongue in cheek, but may I point out a precedent? My car and caravan are linked together by a plug and socket arrangement. Both car and caravan have a battery in them. Guess what, in both instances live 12v dc can be found across two of the terminals in both the socket and the plug. Admittedly, in both instances protected by a 10A fuse - as I found out when the wiring on the car went short-circuit, and after repair still didn't charge the caravan battery! So, in respect of my suggestion, which was, as I have said, initially written tongue in cheek, perhaps it's not so daft after all. Fit a fixed "plug" on the battery box with a 15A fuse between the "plug" and the battery, and a "socket" on the end of a flying lead from the drill: the drill cannot be connected to the mains, and whilst the battery box could, it is extremely unlikely that it would happen. Vanishingly small, I would suggest.
 
Having written the above, I now have a further suggestion to make which will, I think, cover a lot of the points that have been mentioned in this thread. Why not use a caravan plug and socket? The old 7 pin type I admit does have some problems caused by sideways movement, ie "waggling" whilst trying to separate the two. But, with seven pins, one could link three together for the positive, the other three for the negative thus increasing the current capacity, and leave the centre pin (say) unused. But, the sockets come with spring loaded covers thus weather proofing the socket, and the same cover also tends to assist in holding the plug in place. Furthermore, the sockets come designed to be attached to a flat surface and usually have three holes ready for such attachment. In fact, one could go even further (possibly) and wire it up just as a car/caravan would be, hence allowing the drill to be used from the car. Ok, ok, I know there is nowadays often an auxiliary power socket somewhere in the car.

Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
18/03/2010 12:21:48
Ok, this is my take on it.
 
I think a lot of you are going well over the top on this. It is a suggestion of what could be done. It does not give full constructional details of how to do it, merely ideas. I think we should all accept that in any design there will always be experimental phases leading to improved designs: the fact that he has used mains connectors, and then later used something else is an example of this.
 
Let's face it, just who is likely to use such a device? Joe Soap down the street who doesn't know one end of drill bit from another? No, it is going to be people who already  have some mechanical/electrical/everything else skill. And we should, nay must, learn to trust people to know their own limitations and abilities. If we don't then we are going to end up doing nothing because of fear that someone else may do something daft. That way leads stagnation, and Lord knows, we have enough of that already in this country.
 
Let me put it another way. My five year old grandson saw me inserting plastic plugs in a wall with a hammer. "Can I do that Grandad?". "Of course you can." And I gave him the plugs and the hammer. Now should I have done that? After all. he may have dropped the hammer onto his 5 year old toes! Or hit his 5 year old hand whilst holding the plug. That grandson, now getting on for 15 and doing an engineering course at school (and for that matter trusted by his teacher to act responsibly which is more than the teacher can say about other pupils), is now considering, and talking to his dad to see if they have a 14.4v drill for modification! With my blessing, and support!
 
Come on people, lets apply some common sense to all of this. We are not (yet) ruled by 'Elf 'n' Safety' in which case nothing like this would ever see light of day.
 
Incidently, whilst I haven't looked at the idea in any great detail, just suppose, the mains plugs and sockets used for the drill were wired the opposite way round to normal, ie the socket wired to the drill. This would mean that it was impossible to connect such a drill directly to the mains, would it not?

Peter G. Shaw
 

Thread: Drawing standards
17/03/2010 13:42:48
Goran,
 
Suggest a read of Tubal Cain's book Workshop Drawing, Workshop Practice Series No. 13. 
 
Regards,
 
Peter G. Shaw
Thread: cutting morse taper
16/03/2010 15:55:11
Len Mason, on page 41 shows a variety of fine turning tools: Goose neck, Swan neck or Spring; and one he calls a "knife tool". I think that was because he didn't know what else to call it. This tool is, I suppose something like  a parting off tool, but much, much broader, in that it has a straight front cutting edge with a parallel groove behind it. In use the tool is applied to the rod with the cutting edge at, say, 45°, so no need to bother about centre height, and the swarf comes off "like cobwebs leaving a smooth, satin-like finish".

My description is only approximate. Suggest you read the book to find out more.
 
In the same chapter, Mason also describes a tailstock turning tool which is designed to turn down and finish turn a rod to a particular size. Again refer to the book for more details.
 
Regards,

Peter G. Shaw 
16/03/2010 11:43:42
Hi,
My homemade database throws up MEW27 page 51 (Jan 95) for "Skiving" as a different method of lathe cutting. It also says that whilst it apparently has certain advantages, I don't understand it!
 
Peter G. Shaw
<< First < Prev 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Next > Last >>
Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!

Find Model Engineer & Model Engineers' Workshop

Sign up to our Newsletter

Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.

You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
cowells
Sarik
MERIDIENNE EXHIBITIONS LTD
Shopping Partners
Subscription Offer

Latest "For Sale" Ads
Latest "Wanted" Ads
Get In Touch!

Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?

You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.

Click THIS LINK for full contact details.

For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.

Digital Back Issues

Social Media online

'Like' us on Facebook
Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter
 Twitter Logo

Pin us on Pinterest

 

Donate

donate