Member postings for Fowlers Fury

I do appreciate that you already have a between centres boring bar and would therefore be loathe to make another - as was I. But having got into various difficulties, especially trying to measure the radius of cut and then precisely advance the tool, I put it aside. Then built the one designed by Geo Thomas and with the geometry of his boring tool. It was time well spent and probably saved scrapping a big cylinder block casting. The 'bar has been loaned out several times to others who've expressed....ahem..... complete satisfaction.

It reads as though the OP has a pretty large ultrasonic bath ! But a word to those with more modest sized 'baths. I ruined the original transducer in mine by foolishly loading it with trichlorethylene to degrease some small, m/cycle nuts & bolts. After enquiry, the manufacturers replied to the effect - "far too dense a liquid for a bath that size, only ever use aqueous solutions in your new one !"

What oil are you using that requires you to dismantle the clocks that often? Anything but genuine clock oil (the Swiss, Moebus is best) will oxidise fairly quickly and gum-up the works, especially "household lubricating oil" like 3-in-One. In fact most of the sound text books suggest that clocks need no lubrication.

Getting that 'gum' off the moving parts and especially the bushes in the clock plates where the arbours rotate is quite a problem. Are your clocks spring or weight driven? Because another difficulty is where someone has squirted 'any old oil' into the spring barrels. The proprietary solutions vary in ability to remove gum but as suggested - the Allendale soln. could be effective.

For restoration of old pocket watches, I make my own using about 10% v/v ammonia ["0.88"] in distilled water to which I add a few drops of surfactant such as washing-up liquid. When the parts are clean, 'sonicate' again in distlled water then place them on a clean sheet of paper and immediately dry them with a hair dryer and rusting shouldn't occur.

Apologies if the above is already well-known to you. There are many on-line articles covering this area.

Edited By Fowlers Fury on 23/09/2017 12:30:39

"How about a gold plated "Naruto" next to a silver plated one.?"

Why, Ketan - why ?

"the court case over who owns that photograph (Ape vs photographer) has been finally settled in favour of the photographer, common sense at last."

Yes thanks, had seen that. It's on the list of urgent jobs to change from "Naruto" to another, non-copyright image.

"the inserts pictured are totally different. Ones a polished insert with a small rad and ones coated with a large rad."

Of course, no dispute I can see that.

"My own experience of inserts from China, is that similar geometry etc gives similar results."

Similar results doing what though? The particular application I had was to fine turn silver steel to be a precise fit in a bored hole. Those unbranded sintered tips would not allow that. I'm in no position to question whether such Chinese tips with the same tip geometry as the Iscar ones would have permitted <0.001" cuts. I haven't tried. I simply purchased the Iscar tips and found they did the job I needed.

Then as for "Try mounting a 3" diameter plus steel or hard skinned cast iron bar in the chuck, run the S7 flat out, and take a fast cut, at least 250 thou deep."

I'll pass on that. The Myford does all I need which excludes having to take enormous cuts in 3" chilled CI.

I am a regular user of HSS lathe tools but possibly due to my inept use of the Quorn to sharpen them accurately, I cannot obtain the surface finish on Ag steel (with or without Garia H lubricant) that the Iscar tips generate dry.

At risk of repitition, I was attemptng to relate my experiences in using my lathe accoridng to my particular 'hobbyist' needs. If others should find anything of value in recounting those experienes so much the better.

I accept Ketan's comments and acknowledge my relative ignorance of the intricacies of "hundreds of different geometries, surface treatments, chipbreakers, nose radii etc".

If model engineers find a tool which does the job to their satisfaction where's the problem? My point was merely that the unbranded tips, I maybe misguidedly purchased, performed badly in use. Consequently I tried an Iscar insert in the same toolholder and was satisfied with the results obtained. I've no idea what, if any, the claimed part number was for the unbranded tips and I doubt the "well known" seller did either. These are the two tips in question at x10 magnification. The unbranded one (left) had been used once only on the upper tip.

To appropriate that common stallholder's cry to customers "yer pays yer money and takes yer choice".

The LH image is a tip purchased from one of our well known suppliers at a M.E. exhibition whereas that one the right is an Iscar, purchased from JB Cutting Tools again at an exhibition (usual disclaimer; but ever-friendly service).

**LINK**

JB's webpage (above) describes them as 'ground and polished inserts'.

As for Ag steel, I can repeatedly take a self-act cut of one thou on my S7B and the Iscar produces a continuous fine coil of swarf ~ honest !

The one downside with them, at least in my hands, is that they're very fragile. For instance, an inadvertant light contact with a stationary chuck jaw will chip the cutting edge. By contrast they'll keep their edge when subject to some pretty deep, continuous cuts into tough steel.

But do treat the above comments as strictly those of an amateur !

If users of the cheap imports find them effective then they've had more success than me. I purchased a few supposedly Chinese imported carbide tips but their cleaness of cut was very poor on my lathe set up. I then tried "expensive" Iscar tips and their performance was a revelation e.g. when taking a 1 thou cut on silver steel rod. A comparison of the cutting edges on both new inserts under the microscope revealed why.

(At x200 the depth of field is extremely narrow).

Being no expert whatsoever on such tips, I just now purchase the branded tips based on performance and have no feelings about being 'ripped off'.

My old tin depicting "The Twins" has long since gone yet I acquired an even older tin thro' the club's "White Elephant" auction. It was in a box of junk I got landed with:-

(Google Images is a good source of nostalgia for old products' containers & packaging)

I suppose the price for Baker's Fluid doesn't warrant making your own equivalent solution. But some years ago I made Killed Spirits and it worked very well for soft soldering m/s. It "just" requires dissolving zinc in dilute hydrochloric acid until no more hydrogen is evolved and decanting the zinc chloride solution. (These days HCl can be purchased cheaply via Fleabay - I use it for descaling). I remember getting the metallic zinc by cutting up old torch batteries. Well, it was an emergency job, back when shops didn't open on Sundays .

Again, thanks for that latest post. Is that actually Burt in the P/shop insertion ?

Apologies that idleness prevents me searching for whether this has been covered before here, but I've always been fascinated by the controversies about which was the fastest prop aircraft during WWII (ignoring hi-speed dives). Surprisingly (to me) given the date and other claims, this is noteworthy:-

“One of the highest recorded instrumented Mach Numbers attained for a propeller aircraft is the Mach 0.891 for a Spitfire PR XI, flown during dive tests at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough in April 1944. The Spitfire, a photo-reconnaissance variant, the Mark XI, fitted with an extended 'rake type' multiple pitot system, was flown by Squadron Leader J. R. Tobin to this speed, corresponding to a corrected true airspeed (TAS) of 606 mph. [11]”

As if there weren't enough off-topic but amusing posts showing on this thread.....here's one derogatory and off-topic post from another website. No doubt familiar to many. It related to a modification done to a certain make of German car:-

"That is not Mechanical Engineering, its Civil Engineering. A Civil Engineer has two tools, namely a hammer and a contraceptive. If they cannot use the hammer they f... it."

Interesting ! Thanks for the post.....

As you probably know, there's a fascinating vid of a RAN Sea Fury on YouTube at a German air display !!

It has supposedly the Wright engine rather than the Bristol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yrReFAMJZo

And...."The Fastest Indian" ~ definitely one of my favourite films.

Apologies, yes of course, ferrous is divalent form.

Age is taking its toll; a moments thought about ferrous chloride being FeCl2 would have avoided the silly error.

[Message to self: do not rely on failing memory, check first]

"........the possibility that Hydrochloric Acid will react with Iron in the tap to make Iron (III) Chloride. Now that chemical is well known for dissolving copper to make printed circuits. "

Not quite, the reaction between HCl and Fe will produce ferrous (III) chloride irrespective of the acid concentration.

It is the ferric (II) chloride of course which is the etchant. However ferrous chloride does attack Cu to a lesser extent though with the problem described any effect would surely be insignificant.

If Andrew T does decide to use either alum or dilute HCl, it's important to keep agitating the solution with a piece of thin wire in order to displace the hydrogen bubbles which will form on the tap's surface and prevent the reaction. Also keep the reaction warm for a faster dissolution of the steel.

Forgot to add > if a thread lubricant was used before breakage then this will inhibit acid contact with the tap, so degrease as much as possible first with some solvent.

Edited By Fowlers Fury on 14/09/2017 16:21:24

Must've been a great sight & sound !

Last time I saw a flight was at Armed Forces Day, needed a long telephoto lens though:-

Dilute hydrochloric will only attack the zinc in the brass alloy, not the copper. The resultant effect on the brass component is minimal. HCl will be much faster than alum. All such agents are effective by corroding the iron in the steel i.e. accelerated"rusting". I've used both and dilute HCl is my preference. The problem though is any HCl vapour causing corrosion of nearby components which wouldn't occur with alum solution. So, cover the area with Clingfilm if possible.

"The inspection department wish to know which species of gnat ?"

How typical of 'em

Perhaps you could refer the department to that incontrovertible source of all wisdom - Wikipedia - which states "Gnat is a loose descriptive category rather than a phylogenetic or other technical term, so there is no scientific consensus on what constitutes a gnat."

The corollary of which, one must presume, is that there is no scientific consensus of what constitutes a gnat's cock.

Ah well, back to the calipers and slide rule.....................

Some more precise definition of dimensions seems necessary here !

It would appear that the only published measurement is that the common adult gnat is (quote) "~6-7mm” in length.

If we (very) generously assumed that the male’s member was 10% of its body length then the unit of a “gnat’s cock” is a rather coarse 0.6mm or 0.026 inch. So perhaps not very demanding in terms of precision working after all?

However, the diameter of a single hair on that appendage is unlikely to represent more than say 1/100^th of the appendage’s o/a length. Here then we encounter a much tighter standard of precision working i.e. 0.00026 inch.

Even given the gross estimates in the above derivations, I rather think engineering to a GCH, rather than to units of GCs represents a much better standard of workmanship.

"I worked in a number of engineering shops around Nottingham in the 70s. I found I could gain a good idea of the normal standard of precision in each by asking how big a gnat's cock was in their shop"

Originating from that same city as Mick B1 worked in; the unit of precision I most encountered but frequently couldn't work to was a gnat's cock hair !