Member postings for Versaboss

All sorted now, thanks to Roy I have now the Viper plans. As I expected, studying these brought up a couple of questions. Certainly there will be more when the work really starts!
But for now what has come to my attention.

In sheet 1, crankcase: what does the expression 0.005" witness mean in practical machining terms?

In sheet 2, crankshaft: how can the counterweight be machined (in the form as drawn) when the crank pin is in the way? Or is the pin pressed in, but not shown as such?

In sheet 4, cylinder: how is it possible to drill a #33 hole (2.9 mm ) at an angle of 25 °? Might be possible with a 3 mm slot mill, but that would be too large then? Or using 2.5 mm and then opening out a bit?

I started to read through the couple of Viper threads, including the long one from 2019 (what the Google search brings up). I saw a building report from someone, but that ended just when the cylinder machining would becoming interesting. I can't find that thread atm, lost again a couple of hours in searching.

Kind regards,
Hans

Ramon, thanks for your offer. It seems Roy can help me, and I think "the others from the Motor Boys e book" would be too much for me to digest. I'm lucky if I manage to finish that Viper, I think I'm in the same age range as you!

Kind regards
Hans

Roy - I went to adriansmodelaeroengines.com, a very interesting place but no downloads to find there. The links give error messages, 403 forbidden. Unfortunately also no email address. I have a candidate here for the wotizit page.

I will send you a pm,

with many thanks
Hans

I hope it's ok to continue this thread, albeit it is not (yet) about building a Viper. But my problem is that I could not find out how to get the plans. I somewhere saw that they are available at modelenginenews.org, and emailed [email protected]. But I think now that's a dead site, as I did not get a response. Directly on that site, there is only stuff from 2002 to 2013. Now I' at a loss. Can someone here tell me where these plans can be bought?

Regards,
Hans

At least I think it is not a scraped surface plate. Maybe more suited for tinplate bashing.

Regards.
Hans

Hmm, almost a bit concerned about disturbing Nigel's efforts, but here is something not really from today, but from the last couple of weeks.

I built a scraping machine. You know, perhaps, that it is possible to buy one, But the prices, even for used ones, are way over my budget. Some years ago I tried to make such a machine from an old sabre saw, but it was much too wobbly and finally I gave up. Then I saw a short report from someone who built a scraper from an old angle grinder, and even with using some 3D printed parts. So I bought the cheapest (used) angle grinder I could find, and went to work.What I didn't see in the seller's picture was that the head of that grinder was not a casting, but a plastic part. But this was the smallest problem. My first difficulty was to remove the axle from the bevel gear. With much ddifficulties I finally managed that, and could then modify and shorten the axle. A new housing was turned from an aluminium bar, and a steel round with a slot served as holder and guide for a variable eccentric. A scotch yoke moves the scraping tool, and the whole apparatus has room in a piece of square alu tube. Well, that's it, in a nutshell

Here, the pictures:

Oh, I almost forgot to mention that the machine does not run on grid power (that would be MUCH TOO fast!),
but on an old 19V laptop power supply.

Kind regards,
Hans

Edited By Versaboss on 18/07/2023 23:20:27

SK, would it be possible to take a photo through your microscope? I would very much like to see what you see, iykwIm!

Regards,
Hans

I think it is important to know here that the coarseness of diamond wheels is not given in the same numbers as other grinding wheels.

The usual system goes from small numbers = coarse to big numbers = fine. So grit 100 is (much) coarser than grit 1000.

In diamond (and CBN) it is the other way round. Usually the grit is preceded with a D (or B for CBN). The numbers are in steps, which I can't write down out of my head, but:
C40 is very fine, C1xx is coarser, C2xx is very coarse.

But as with most things, there are exceptions. I have a couple of Chinese grinding discs (galvanic bound on 1 mm steel, 120 mm dia.), which use the grit system. Mine go from 800 to 3000. They are wonderful to hone carbide scraping blades, and naturally turning tools also. Used on a very slow grinder, driven from a windscreen wiper motor.

Regards,
Hans

Postscript: polishing lathe tools with a felt disc and polishing compound is nonsense... Sorry for being so blunt.

Edited By Versaboss on 01/05/2023 22:53:30

And one more: found a list of the grit sizes here:

Grit size

Edited By Versaboss on 01/05/2023 23:01:25

It was quite entertaining to read (again) the almost unbelievable mental topsyturvifications (*) of Mr. Graham.

But, as it seems, only a human tutor can eventually lead him out of his misery, why not doing that 'over the 'net'?

There is a small program called Teamviewer. Maybe there are others, but that's what I used in my professional life. With its help, a tutor can log in into the pupil's computer and guide him as if they were in the same room. I'm sure colleague Andy could do that.

But I fear that Mr. Graham would immediately dismiss such dangerous things. Not in his lifetime would he allow a stranger having access to his computer.

(*) A nice word I found in the Leo translator program, I hope it's appropriate.

I take my coat...

Hans

Well, that's very interesting. I always thought Iron at 2000°C would have the viscosity of running water. So they had a method to keep the original form after the case hardening?

Regards,
Hans

Hallo Michael,

I cannot see from the text above who the “corresponding author” is, but I know with high probabilityy who Susan Parker is. She is a (not very active) member of the model engineering mailing list, and also the constructor of a very high end audio amplifier.

If you need to know more, I might be able to find an email address.

Kind regards,
Hans

Then there is Limonene, aka Orange oil. I use it (among others) for removing address and other labels on cardboard boxes, which I keep for reuse. Just let it dry for a couple of hours, before going to the post office...

Oh, and I use it also for cleaning the build platform of my 3D Printer.

Regards,
Hans

C45 is not an HSS steel. I have some rectangular bars in my workshop. It's a steel for building jigs and such things.

Copied and translated from the net:

The material 1.0503 is also known as steel C45 and complies with DIN EN 10083-2 as well as the American standard AISI 1045. It is a non-alloyed quenched and tempered or structural steel that is characterised by a very uniform material structure.

Regards,
Hans

A couple of days, I hit upon a YouTube film where someone explained that it is possible to electrolyse water with a much smaller energy input than what science taught up to now. I for myself, thought that the energy is a fixed value for a certain amount of water. The method as described worked with something like agitating the water with a piezoelectric element. The claim was, iirc, about 15 times higher efficiency. Be it as it is, I don't really believe that.

But I wanted to see what chatGPT knows, and here are the answers:

First question
How many KWh does it need to electrolyse 1 kg water?

The amount of energy required to electrolyze 1 kg of water depends on several factors, such as the voltage and current used, the efficiency of the electrolysis process, and the temperature and pressure of the system.

However, we can make an estimate based on the standard enthalpy change of electrolysis of water at standard conditions (25°C and 1 atm pressure), which is 286 kJ/mol. The molar mass of water is approximately 18 g/mol, so 1 kg of water contains approximately 55.6 moles of water.

Therefore, the energy required to electrolyze 1 kg of water at standard conditions can be estimated as:

286 kJ/mol x 55.6 mol = 15,933.6 kJ

To convert kJ to kWh, we can divide by the number of joules in one kilowatt-hour (3,600,000):

15,933.6 kJ / 3,600,000 = 4.43 kWh

So, it would require approximately 4.43 kWh of energy to electrolyze 1 kg of water at standard conditions. Note that in practical applications, the actual energy required may be higher due to various inefficiencies in the process.

My second question;
Are there means to significantly reduce that energy?

Yes, there are several ways to reduce the amount of energy required to electrolyze water. Here are a few examples:

1. Improve the efficiency of the electrolysis process: Electrolysis involves the conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy. The efficiency of this process depends on various factors such as the type of electrode, the voltage and current used, and the temperature and pressure of the system. By optimizing these factors, it is possible to improve the efficiency of the electrolysis process and reduce the amount of energy required.

2. Use renewable energy sources: If the electricity used for electrolysis is generated from renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power, the carbon footprint of the process can be significantly reduced. This can also help to reduce the overall cost of the process.

3. Use alternative electrolytes: The traditional electrolyte used for water electrolysis is a solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH) or sodium hydroxide (NaOH), which can be expensive and corrosive. However, there are alternative electrolytes that are cheaper and less corrosive, such as proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolytes. Using these alternative electrolytes can reduce the overall cost of the electrolysis process.

4. Use advanced materials: There is ongoing research into developing new materials for the electrodes and other components of the electrolysis system. These advanced materials can improve the efficiency of the electrolysis process and reduce the amount of energy required.

In summary, by optimizing the various factors involved in the electrolysis process, using renewable energy sources, using alternative electrolytes, and using advanced materials, it is possible to significantly reduce the amount of energy required to electrolyze water.

What do our scientists say?

Regards,
Hans

Edited By Versaboss on 16/02/2023 22:35:10

Nick, you are right, a part of the left foot is broken away. But it does not hamper the usage of the item.

As I wrote, it is VERY difficult to arrange a point or cross exactly between the lines. For my picture, I tried certainly more than 5 minutes until I was halfway satisfied. When it is an optical centre punch, then I would call it 'not fit for purpose' !

Thanks, and regards
Hans

In the course of a much-needed clean-up, I came across the following device. I no longer have any idea how and when it came into my possession; perhaps the optics interested me. As you can see, the device consists of an optical system, which, unlike a magnifying glass, reverses the image. With the pin on the side, you can pull up and fix a movable hammer. Pressing the trigger releases the hammer and the small conical tip punches a dot into the base. There is no scale in the optics, so it is probably not a hardness tester. As an optical centre punch it is too inaccurate, as the example in the last picture shows. Also, it is very difficult to place a cross line exactly between the lines in the optics.

.....

.....

.....

....

.....

Any ideas what it could be?

I was a bit lazy and used Deepl translator; I think it (he?) makes a good job.

Regards,
Hans

As I have a project with the Dallas DS18B20 on a (very slow) back burner, I would very much like to know how Mr. AnOther connected the (3-wire) chip to the (4-wire) telephone cable. Was it just as simple as leaving one wire unconnected?

Inquiring minds...

Hans

Thanks, Pete, I can fully agree. But it is a shame that many people don't even try Onshape, because it is 'in the cloud'. It would cost them only a few clicks, and if they don't like it, just forget it (no deinstall necessary).
My oldest 'designs' (which I didn't delete), go back to 2016, and all is still there.
The help I got from them, when I also had some troubles in the beginning, can't be bettered.
I still consider Onshape the easiest CAD on the market just now, and I tried a lot since I attended an Autocad course back in 1989 iirc.

Season's greetings.

Hans

Maybe a bit late in this discussion, but there are some things which I find hard to believe.

Mr. Souza wrote in his first post that he has porcelain tiles"...from my bathroom remodeling and they are 80 cm x 80 cm..." In another post, he wrote that his tiles have the same thickness as a granite kitchen top.
Now in my kitchen I have a granite top, and it is 30 mm thick, or if you like 3 cm. I can stand on it no problem (well, I'm not unduly heavy). So the volume of such a tile is 80 x 80 x 3 cm^3, and when I guess that porcelain has a specific weight of at least 2, that would result in a weight of nearly 40 kg, or maybe even more.
Pity the tiler who has to glue these monsters on a bathroom wall...

In short, I can't believe that until I can see it, and I wonder why not one of our usual sharp eyes took notice of that.

Regards,
Hans

Edited By Versaboss on 23/11/2022 22:57:23

Want some more strange stuff?

In issue 317, bottom left of the first page ("On the Editor's Bench" ) you can read:

This issue was published on June 17, 2022
The next issue will be on sale on July 22, 2022

These two lines are repeated in every issue since then. So they did the whole bunch in June?

Regards,
Hans

edit: deleted that dreaded smiley

Edited By Versaboss on 26/10/2022 15:11:28