Member postings for Paul Kemp

Er...... I think the clue is in the title?! 6 1/2" OD by 6.00 ID (I think with my limited maths that's about 1/8" wall thickness) and given its a smokebox probably 4 - 5" long, it's not going to be that long anyway. I would assume the exact material is immaterial but non ferrous probably best for a corrosion point of view. If you got a piece of 1/8" copper plate it shouldn't be too hard to roll it round a former if it's well annealed. Sorry don't have any suggestions for a piece of tube though.

Oops Jason beat me too it!  If it's a traction engine then agree with Jason, steel would be best, more possibilities for supply too, I got a piece of 13" OD pipeline tube for mine and turned it down to 12 5/8".

Paul.

Edited By Paul Kemp on 21/04/2019 20:22:01

You used to be able to get cheque books too! Come to that we used to have a bank in town that you could walk too, now it's £6 on the bus to see one. When you go inside its full of computers and you won't find a counter! I think that makes the banking system truly ambidextrous, you don't need a pen!

Paul.

Paul,

There was recent mention of this in another thread. Always best to consult with the tester that you propose to use for your boiler (they will likely want to see it during the stages of construction anyway if they are following the code precisely) but I think it unlikely they will want to see certs for the copper. If they do you could ask how many ME suppliers of materials provide these for copper as a matter of course! It's only really relevant for copper if you are TIG welding it to determine the arsenic content. Steel is a different matter.

Paul.

Ron,

Sounds good, I am sure it will run as well aa it looks. Going to post some video of it in action? Look forward to seeing it in action.

Paul.

He says it weighs 10kg?

Nice job.

Paul.

Not in England you can't if you want to go the club testing route as the code specifically precludes stainless as a generic and I imagine NI is the same, not sure about the South though. You might be OK with a commercial test and a commercial insurer as long as you can do the numbers and get a design approved. Could be complicated and expensive though!

I can see the logic precluding stainless as a material given its propensity for cracking and sudden failure but other places in the world as well as Europe allow it, maybe we are stuck in the dark ages.

Paul.

Michael / (Terry?),

Tippex works quite well on exposed surfaces. Not sure how effective it would be on a shaft / hole though. Better approach might be to make the bush with an undersized bore and then line ream it in situ.

Paul.

Dave,

Visit your local City Elctrical Factors they will likely have something in either plastic, brass or steel. However some old motors I have had some very odd threads which don't match modern standards. The one on my mill dating back to around 1960 I had to tap out to (from memory) 22mm in order to get a gland that would accept screened cable.

Paul.

Werner,

Looks a very nice little track and with the tight curves very prototypical. The flange squeal adds to the atmosphere! On heritage railways over here they are sometimes using graphite blocks which are sprung loaded into the root of the flange from a holder to provide 'lubrication' and extend the life of the wheel profiles by reducing wear. Might be something to experiment with on your home track to save the olive oil.

Paul.

Werner, very nice, looks to steam very well. I like that steam pump runs very smooth at low speed. I take it from the flange squeal you are running on steel rail in your garden?

Paul.

Robert,

I am being obtuse (again?). If I am being obtuse then you are being acute. Dave (SOD) summed up the underlying theme of my posts very well I think. Regulation is not fully prescriptive and where it isn't has to be interpreted considering the intent and as he rightly says this is normally achieved by 'case law'.

The example you state of exceeding a limit is irrelevant to the discussion as that is prescriptive. Legislation lays down a limit, limit exceeded, clearly non compliant, job done.

However clearly from your original question the application of the legislation in this case is not prescriptive and therefore must be interpreted. If it were prescriptive and there was a clause stating this legislation is all encompassing and applicable to commercial, non commercial and any use then you would have quoted it rather than ask an (obtuse) open question.

You have been provided with several specific examples of legislation clauses and been given opinion of their interpretation which apparently go no where close to satisfying your opinion and your opinion clearly is not open to being swayed. In fact I doubt that if the president of the EU posted here the intent of the regulation is not aimed at model engineers you would still argue the point.

So let's reverse the burden of proof and have you quote the specific clauses that you interpret as showing why a model engineer in his shed producing an item of tooling for his own use in his own shed with no intent to place it on the market or put it into use without commercial gain MUST CE mark it and Must comply with the Machinery Directive.

If you can do that in the black and white terms of your aviation compliance example like a go or no go gauge I may entertain further debate. Otherwise I have better things to do.

Paul.

Mal, that is truly a thing of beauty. As said before there is some cracking work there. Keep posting please, very interesting.

Paul.

Good man! Have been reading your exploits from the beginning, makes entertaining reading and I like your style!

Remember no one knows everything, the key to success is knowing enough! The key to successful purchasing is getting what you need that will perform as well as you need it to (not neccesarily as well as everyone else thinks it should) at the right price for you.

End of it all is there is a tremdous amount of self satisfaction to be gained when you churn out something that works as you want by your own efforts with the equipment and knowledge you have. Enjoy yourself and keep safe.

Paul.

And there exactly in your last sentence lies the problem. A horse can be lead to water ....................

Paul.

I don't think I mentioned a casual user? However at home I could easily be defined as a casual user. At work I am a member of a professional body with formal engineering qualifications and more years experience than I care to count. Does that make me an incompetent casual user at home? Self certification is never a good idea, independent inspection and certification is always better. Strange though that the PED does not preclude 'self certification' don't you think? Funny old world.

Paul.

Why would you pressure test a diving cylinder with air????? No self respecting or competent establishment would do that and clearly from the comment re the fitting thread form the operative was not competent to test a balloon! There is a world of difference between a diving cylinder and the average home compressor tank something like a factor of 15 on pressure.

Paul.

Dear Robert,

Pray where am I ignoring the 'and' in point a? Also putting into service is dealt with in the first line.

Lets go through the extract step by step; the first sentence clearly states of you read it correctly that an 'object' is not considered to have been placed on the market or put into service where the following criteria are met.

the first is as you state "a" and it does have an and at the end, so the inference is "a" (not being CE marked) must be met plus other conditions. As I stated we don't mark the stuff we make so "a" is dealt with.

(i) has no "and" or "or" at the end so we must assume this was intended as a stand alone and obligatory with "a". However that tends to override the whole premis of the first paragraph so like most EU regulation is poorly written as putting into service and placing on the market are joined together in "a" but now apparently separated again by (i)! For proper clarity the two things should be dealt with separately.

(ii) has an "or" at the end so the implication is this need not be met if some other following condition is. So we can ignore that.

(iii) also has an "or" at the end but the paragraphs following are completely unrelated to your question as they deal with bringing the object into the EEA for the purposes of advertising / demonstration at a trade fair. Sadly (iii) is also extremely poorly written and you have to read it several times if you are the average man on the street to extract a meaning! Basically it says if a person imports the object not in the course of business and intends to use it for a non business related use we are ok. See my last para where I stated (iii) "is nearly there" so I clearly took note of the and and tested the other text for fit! The problem for a test case on this particular part of the legislation is the context centres only on import and not manufacture. I don't know because I haven't looked and really don't have the inclination to spend time on it if there is anywhere else in the legislation that answers this question but given that bikepete's linked abstract comes from section 2 which is basically definition and application it really ought to be dealt with in this para. So another opportunity for the lawyers to get rich arguing over interpretation of the intent.

I would make three comments; firstly that as others have stated / alluded to, I also, from your responses would question your motives. Secondly as a compliance professional I am surprised by your interpretation of my post and the assumption I had stopped at "a" when I clearly referred to (iii). Thirdly the question you pose despite some having given you legislative examples as you initially requested is not clear cut and can only really be proven by case law. A well used legal principle is the reasonable man test, common sense says if you are making something in your shed for your own use in a leisure activity for which there is no intention to place it on the market or cause harm to anyone but yourself the directive would not apply. Sadly sense is not that common anymore it seems!

best regards,

Paul.

How do you interpret this?

"For the purposes of these Regulations, machinery or partly completed machinery shall not be regarded as being placed on the market or put into service where—

(a)it does not have affixed to it either the CE marking, or any inscription likely to be confused with the CE marking, and—

(i)it will not be put into service in an EEA state;

(ii)it is imported into an EEA state for re-export to a country which is not an EEA state; or

(iii)it is imported into an EEA state other than in the course of a business by a person who intends to use it other than in the course of a business; or"

The second bit applies to trade fairs and is irrelevant.

i would say as you don't put a CE Mark on your home made tools the first part is satisfied and as a "hobbyist" is not intending to use it for business (iii) is nearly there too except it's not been imported. Any proper lawyers out there?

Paul.

Last time I read the PED it didn't specifically require an annual test? I believe it requires a pressure system in operation to have a written scheme of examination defining the system and its components drawn up by a competent person with a frequency of examination appropriate to its use. In fact the definition of competent person I believe can include an employee and doesn't necessarily need to be independent. Appropriate for its use meaning a pressure cooker manufactured and sold for home use will never see a repeat test where a high volume and pressure commercial system would. The distinction on commercial or home use is blurred because to manufacture something for sale (destination may well be a home) it has to satisfy the design criteria of the PED under one of the classes which determines how rigorous the testing and supervision process is. If you are manufacturing something for your own use outside of a commercial setting with no intent of putting it on the market there is no requirement as far as I was aware to comply with it?

Returning to the annual test point at a previous place of work post 2002 our air receivers had an annual visual inspection and functional exam by the insurance surveyor, a full hydrostatic pressure test at wp + FOS was only carried out every ten years. This is the same regime applied to full size steam boilers.

How many of the righteous folk on here have any inspection certificate for their machine mart compressor since purchase? For those that do have they checked their home insurance to see if it covers pressurised air systems within the home?

Paul.

That would do it! Did something similar with a home made spot facing cutter in the mill! Realised I had ground the bit the wrong way round, reversing the spindle made a significant difference . It happens lol.