twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 14 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Gunner News Agency
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/5cc22b57aa9c402b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:26 am
From: John D.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:21:48 -0600, Don Foreman
<dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:43:22 +0700, John D. <johndslocomb@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:06:26 -0800, Hawke
>><davesmithers@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Gee, I can't wait. The signal to noise ratio certainly improves when
>>>> he's not around.
>>>> **************
>>>>
>>>> But I need to pick his brain about my 1911, I'm at a standstill trying to
>>>> figure out some issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>If your gun is a new one before you do anything else you need to break
>>>it in. That means you have to shoot at least a thousand and preferably
>>>2000 rounds of ball ammo through it. That's hardball ammo. Don't shoot
>>>anything but round nosed ammo until you break it in. After your gun is
>>>good and broken in then you can worry about SWC lead bullets, lower
>>>power recoil springs, and other things. If you haven't shot the gun
>>>enough to get it good and broken in then you're getting way ahead of
>>>yourself. Many times people have all kinds of problems with brand new
>>>1911s. They need to be shot a lot before you even think of going on to
>>>other things. Some 1911s are good to go right out of the box but many
>>>need a break in period. Shoot a thousand rounds or so of ball ammo and
>>>see what happens. Make sure you use Wilson Combat magazines too.
>>>
>>>Hawke
>>
>>
>>Question: Is this correct? I read various articles in gun magazines
>>about "breaking-in" guns but in my own experience, which stopped
>>abruptly in 1972, one bought a gun and it worked right out of the box
>>and if it didn't you took it back.
>>
>>Certainly I never saw a 1911 that wouldn't function right out of the
>>box. Of course, the only 1911's in those days were either war-surplus
>>or made by Colt so I wonder; has manufacturing quality fallen that
>>far?
>>
>>You break in your gun but not your automobile? Used to be 'tother way
>>round.
>>
>>
>>John D.
>>(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>I have several semiautos. One of them, a Browning Buckmark .22LR, was
>fussy about ammo at first. It's still a bit fussy after maybe 1500
>rounds, but less so. Another that is slightly fussy about ammo is a
>Colt 1911 Officer's which I got used. It appeared to have been carried
>a lot but seldom fired. It had a bit of holster wear but the action
>was and is tight as a tick. It's OK with factory ammo or handloads
>that aren't too mild. 5.6 grains of W231 behind 200-grain lead SWC's
>works well. That's a little lighter than Winchester White Box 230
>grain but not a lot. I have chrony data, too lazy to get my range
>notebook out.
>
>The rest of them, including the SA 1911 "loaded", are quite unfussy
>about ammo for reliable operation.
>
>A recoil-operated semiauto (which is about all of them) needs some
>"push back" from the shooter's grip to operate reliably. The inertial
>mass of the frame isn't enough to get that done in the heavier
>calibers. I've found .40S&W and .45ACP to be a bit more demanding
>about that than 9mmp and smaller. Tom, you mention that you have
>tender hands. Your problem might be that you're limpwristing your
>.45. Please ignore anyone who tries to spin that comment as an
>insult, it's merely a note from a fellow shooter. It matters
>considerably less with your XD 9mmp and not at all with a revolver but
>.40S&W and .45ACP require some starch in the shooter's grip. I had
>that problem early on with my first handgun after a hiatus of 40
>years, an XD .40. Figured it out after a couple hundred rounds,
>stiffened up a bit to fix it.
>
>I agree with Hawke about the Wilson Combat magazines I've had no
>issue with the Springfield mags but I've had better experience with
>Wilson than with the Colt mags for the 1911 Officer's.

Interesting. I bought one of the long barrel S&W model 41's when they
first came out. Shot it for a while and later cut the barrel off (just
before S&W did :-) and shot it for ten years or more. It worked right
out of the box and never missed a lick in all the time I was shooting
it. to the best of my recollection I never has a malfunction with it.

Your comment about the firm grip is very topical. Most beginning
shooters, shooting centerfire guns, have a lot of wrist movement. If
you watch an experienced shooter you can see that there is almost no
wrist movement. the shoulder moves back a bit and the arm moves up but
the wrist stays straight.

John D.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:31 am
From: John D.

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:02:31 -0500, Wes <clutch@lycos.com> wrote:

>Hawke <davesmithers@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Gee, I can't wait. The signal to noise ratio certainly improves when
>>> he's not around.
>>> **************
>>>
>>> But I need to pick his brain about my 1911, I'm at a standstill trying to
>>> figure out some issues.
>>
>>
>>If your gun is a new one before you do anything else you need to break
>>it in. That means you have to shoot at least a thousand and preferably
>>2000 rounds of ball ammo through it. That's hardball ammo. Don't shoot
>>anything but round nosed ammo until you break it in. After your gun is
>>good and broken in then you can worry about SWC lead bullets, lower
>>power recoil springs, and other things. If you haven't shot the gun
>>enough to get it good and broken in then you're getting way ahead of
>>yourself. Many times people have all kinds of problems with brand new
>>1911s. They need to be shot a lot before you even think of going on to
>>other things. Some 1911s are good to go right out of the box but many
>>need a break in period. Shoot a thousand rounds or so of ball ammo and
>>see what happens. Make sure you use Wilson Combat magazines too.
>>
>>Hawke
>
>What kind of 1911 are we discussing, a 1911 you can drop in the mud and do all the nasty
>things to that were done to the M9 and other candidates to replace it or are we talking a
>1911 that you shoot IDPA or PPC with? Those are two totally different firearms as far
>tolerances, fit, and cleaning requirements.
>
>Total agreement on having good mazazines. One should number theirs and keep track of
>misfeeds, if any, to tie the problem to a potentially bad magazine.
>
>Wes

Actually, there are probably three kinds of 1911. The issue guns that
in many cases were loose enough to rattle if you shook them; the Colt
or other civilian guns and are pretty loose but don't rattle and the
accurcized one from a gunsmith. But if I paid the money and had
someone build me a PPC or IDPA gun and they told me that it needed
breaking in I believe that I'd find a better gunsmith.

John D.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 9:14 am
From: Larry Jaques

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:21:35 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
<buerste@buerste.com> scrawled the following:

>"Larry Jaques" <ljaques@diversify.invalid> wrote in message
>news:hqjio5li54ocp139rrbrjnkua754fatli9@4ax.com...

>> Damnit, Tawm. Fix your quoting, will ya? I just called you on a
>> rangerssuck post. He's in my twit list (gee, wonder why) so I wouldn't
>> have seen his post had you not quoted it.
>
>Okey-dokey! I don't plonk often but today I killed Cliff, Curley, TMT and a
>couple of others. I won't add to the noise anymore, it's senseless to feel
>the libtard trolls, they'll never get it anyway.

We'll try to hold you to this more tightly than we did the first
couple time you said it. ;)

Thanks, BTW.

--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gun nuts need psych tests, at least "obsessed" 0bama lovers do.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/11438d55184e2ddd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:30 am
From: "Scout"

Seon Ferguson wrote:
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:JDoin.144548$OX4.113805@newsfe25.iad...
>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:0Dgin.51443$qJ.22524@newsfe10.iad...
>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Ztbin.21920$Dv7.15210@newsfe17.iad...
>>>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:mz2in.57579$G_2.52091@newsfe15.iad...
>>>>>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:Y5-dnad-U6DpCxXWnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@bright.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jeff R." <contact@this.ng> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:4b8847be$0$19545$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "RBnDFW" <burkheimer@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:hm9gso$9l9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Constitution does not grant out any rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It merely recognizes God-given rights of all humans, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly limits the right of government to deny or
>>>>>>>>>>>> infringe those rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rights have to be fought for by the people. They are not given
>>>>>>>>> to us by some supernatural deity. Throughout history humans
>>>>>>>>> have had to fight for their rights and we still are...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where exactly do you get the right to fight for your rights?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not God, that's for sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? Care to prove that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Lol no and I can't disprove it.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so we really don't know it's not God for sure.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, moving on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And we just saved ourselves a one week debate.
>>>
>>>>>>> And we don't have a "right" to fight for our
>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, so when you said people had to fight for their rights, then
>>>>>> you're really telling us that they didn't have a right to do so.
>>>>>> So how were they able to fight?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> When the majority of the people decide something is wrong they can
>>>>> effect change, right or no right.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but to effect change requires that they have the right to
>>>> effect that change. All you're doing is pushing the right that
>>>> exists further back. For if the people don't have this right, then
>>>> they aren't justified in their actions no matter how many agree
>>>> with it. So where do rights start if you feel they aren't inherent?
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure, any ideas?
>>
>> Well, they could be inherent, but you seem to find that answer
>> objectionable. If that isn't the answer, then you need to come up
>> with where they get this right. Saying you don't know isn't valid
>> since that brings us right back to the condition you claim is untrue.
>>
>>>>>>> But when the people do decide to rise up and fight for their
>>>>>>> rights, right or no right, they get results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, it's a right. Otherwise they couldn't do so contrary to the
>>>>>> law.
>>>>> What if they lived in a dictatorship?
>>>>
>>>> What about it?
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting their rights change because of their government?
>>>>
>>> I guess I am. EXCEPT even if someone had no rights to rise up
>>> against their government if enough people joined the revolution
>>> then they would allow change.
>>
>> Ah, so they don't have the right, except that they do.
>>
>> That's certainly......contradictory....
>>
>>
> Well in a dictatorship they wouldn't have the right but they still
> can. So I guess people everywhere do have that right. But suggesting
> it is a right is suggesting it can be taken away.

Well, under YOUR theory of what a right is, you certainly could. Indeed
under your theory of rights anything and everything could be taken away.

However, I fail to see how calling it a right makes it something that can be
taken away. Since you seem to find the term 'right' objectionable, exactly
what term do you suggest we use?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:33 am
From: "Scout"

Jeff R. wrote:
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:Vwoin.14275$ND2.13062@newsfe05.iad...
>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:iFgin.1983$NH1.1027@newsfe14.iad...
>>>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>>>>> Don't be silly.
>>>>>>> There are no "innate" rights.
>>>>>>> You and I have no rights whatsoever - other than those granted
>>>>>>> by the society in which we live.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see, and if a society were to deem that you had no rights, and
>>>>>> indeed wanted to put you to death....then that's ok because no
>>>>>> one has any rights other than those granted by the society that
>>>>>> now wants you dead?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>> Now you've got it.
>>>>
>>>> So I take it you approve of the holocaust and see absolutely no
>>>> issues with the widespread killing of Jews which according to their
>>>> society had no rights?
>>>
>>> What?
>>> Where on earth did you get that idea? Can you cite where I even
>>> *suggested* that?
>>
>> Look above. You know the comment I made that you stated you agreed
>> with totally.
>>
>> That's where I get that idea, because thats were you suggested total
>> approval of such an action.
>
> No - you misunderstand.
> I did not indicate that I "approved of" any such thing.

I specifically asked if you approved, and you indicated you did.

> You asked if I agreed that a society could exist in which I had no
> right to live.

No, I asked you if you were ok with such a society.

Now, you can either go back and acknowledge your answer was misleading and
incorrect and adjust it, or we can simply end this discussion due to your
lack of reading comprehension and a refusal to admit you made a mistake.

Your choice.

<snip>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:51 am
From: "Scout"

I specifically asked if you approved and you indicated that you did.

> You asked if I agreed that a society could exist in which I had no
> right to live.

No, I asked you if you were ok with such a society, and you acknowledged you
were.

> I agreed - as indeed it can - though I expressed *no* opinion as to my
> approval or otherwise of such a society (actually I did; I implied
> disapproval, but that is immaterial.)

Reread the question you were asked and which you provided an answer to.

>
> *You* made the leap from:
> (a) society makes the rules (true)
> to
> (b) I personally approve of those rules regardless (never stated, but
> obviously untrue)
>
> *I* did not.

Then why did you answer my question asking you this very thing with an
affirmative answer?

> Fact is, the victims of the holocaust had their "inalienable" rights
> taken away from by the Nazis.
> (So much for "inalienable.")

Sorry, but just because a right is violated, doesn't mean they don't have
the right.

See, rights can be infringed and doing so does not eliminate your right. You
may not see the difference, but unless you're going to tell me you approve
or are apathetic to what occurred in Germany, you're going to have to come
up with some basis for your disapproval. Human rights violations is out. So
what is the basis of your disapproval assuming you actually disapprove of
what occurred?

> You see, the rights they had were granted by the society in which they
> lived, and were just as easily stripped from them by the same society.

No, their rights were violated by that society. You can take someone's
rights away.

>>> Understanding <> approval.
>>
>> I asked if it was ok, and you said "Yes".
>
> No - when you asked if it was "OK", my reply ("yes!")

So you acknowledged your acceptance of what they did.

> simply affirmed
> that it was in accordance with the rights granted to the people by
> the government of the day.

And acceptance that you were ok with that and all that occurred as a direct
result.

> I didn't make any moral judgments about whether it was right or wrong
> - just consistent with the authority, which it was.
> Of course it was evil.

I see, so they did what you said was perfectly proper and reasonable.....and
then you tell me it was evil.

Ok. WHY was it evil?

It can't be because they violated the rights of these people, so why exactly
do you find their actions evil?

>> So you were asked if you approved and you acknowledged that you did.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I don't *approve* of the hot and humid weather that we experience in
>>> summer, but that doesn't have the slightest effect whatsoever on the
>>> *reality* of that weather.
>>
>> So if I ask you if you are ok with the hot and humid weather and you
>> answer "Yes. Exactly.", I'm suppose to take that as something other
>> than approval?
>>
>> Interesting.
>
> If you ask me: "Are you OK with the existence of the hot weather" I
> answer "Yes, of course it exists. I hate it, but it happens." Do
> you see the difference.

Well, let's see. First you changed the question to make it seem as if I am
asking you about the existence of such weather, rather than asking your
opinion about such weather. Then you alter your answer to include commentary
that doesn't exist in your initial response.

Sorry, but trying to change the conditions of the question and your response
simply indicates that you realize (now) that you did state an approval of
such a action by Germany.

> I acknowledge fully the process, without
> approving of it or enjoying it. Not much point denying it.

So you accept the process and are perfectly OK with everything that means?

oh, except you tell us you're not ok, despite saying you were, and now wish
to claim it's evil, but not because anyone's rights were violated.

It's going to be interesting to see your excuse for why you now think it was
evil.

>> Are you that person that always reverses the meaning of what he says?
>
> No.
> I have been utterly consistent.
> You have made leaps of logic where they don't exist.

Maybe you have, but you certainly failed to communicate that and your
refusal to confront that says a lot about where you stand.

>>> I acknowledge the fact that we have no inherent, innate rights.
>>> My approval is neither stated nor relevant.
>>
>> Take that up with the answer you gave. I will simply note that with
>> the ideal of no inherent, innate rights, then your approval is
>> automatic since you have no basis for disapproval. I suppose we
>> could consider apathy but that's simply approval by silence.
>
> Why?
> There are many things I detest, and many things I love - none of
> which I have mentioned here. Does that imply apathy?

You established the principles. You accept the consequences of your
principles.

> I acknowledge that rights are granted to us by our society. They are
> neither inherent nor innate.
> I don't necessarily agree with the specific application(s) of these
> rights, but that is not at issue.
> It is you alone who have made that assumption on my part.

I see, so you approve, in general, with genocide even though you may not
accept any specific application of genocide?

A principle you support in general, but which you call 'evil' when
specifically applied.

Interesting.

So do you regularly find your principles so......flexible? So arbitrary? So
transitory?

That you find you accept something in general that you find to be evil in
practice?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: FS -- 275 amp Pipeline Welder, Continental 163 engine
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/dc43134cee7f371e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:31 am
From: Ignoramus26630

sold

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pawn Shop Bargains ...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b7474a867df329f8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:39 am
From: "Steve B"

"Robert Swinney" <judybob@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:scCdnRW1ksgSyBfWnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Steve sez: "Almost every "thrift" shop I have been in recently, even
> religious charities
> are very aware of ebay. . . ."
>
> We've got a small shop nearby that sells used, reconditioned, and surplus
> tooling. The place is run
> by an ex-machinist from an electronics manufacturer. He has some some good
> stuff and some
> not-so-good. Caveat emptor. Bargains are hard to find there. He seems to
> "price" near retail,
> referencing catalogs from major suppliers. The convenience factor and no
> shipping costs offset his
> near-retail prices.
>
> Bob Swinney

In my book, used is instantly half retail. Maybe a bit more if I need it.
I wouldn't be doing a lot of business with that fellow.

Steve

==============================================================================
TOPIC: building jeep frame
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/32fc57a529507b1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:44 am
From: matt_at_athayde_dot_com@foo.com (mattathayde)

mattathayde had written this in response to
http://rittercnc.com/metalworking/building-jeep-frame-226620-.htm :

-------------------------------------
mark wrote:

> My original jeep CJ-7 frame has rusted out and I was thinking of
> building a new one from aluminum. Would 2 X 4 X 1/4 wall (if that is
> even available) box tubing have the equivalent strength of the stock
> 1/8" wall steel frame? I would like aluminum because it will last
> forever, no need of any paints etc..., very easy to work with and
> cheaper than building a steel one and having it galvanized. My second
> choice would be stainless 1/8" box tubing.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/ is going to be your best resource for this
info,
these guys do very crazy builds.

i dont know my al and steels very well but i think AL might have issues
with the
welds stressing and with temper changing over time

-matt

##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.rittercnc.com/
Metalworking Forums
Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup -
rec.crafts.metalworking - 199803 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:42 am
From: "Steve B"

"mark" <markhabbi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0af62f9f-f2c6-4869-b9cc-7429fefb2ee2@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> My original jeep CJ-7 frame has rusted out and I was thinking of
> building a new one from aluminum. Would 2 X 4 X 1/4 wall (if that is
> even available) box tubing have the equivalent strength of the stock
> 1/8" wall steel frame? I would like aluminum because it will last
> forever, no need of any paints etc..., very easy to work with and
> cheaper than building a steel one and having it galvanized. My second
> choice would be stainless 1/8" box tubing.

I don't think a frame made of that tiny tubing would be very good.

Steve <g>

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:47 am
From: Joseph Gwinn

In article <0af62f9f-f2c6-4869-b9cc-7429fefb2ee2@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
mark <markhabbi@hotmail.com> wrote:

Aluminum is far less stiff than steel, and doubling thickness may yield a
too-floppy frame. I would stick with steel unless you reengineer the frame.

Joe Gwinn

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:57 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

This looks familiar, Mark. Didn't you post this same question here three or
four years ago? Someone posted something similar.

Anyway, as Joe Gwinn says, aluminum has 1/3 the stiffness of steel, roughly
1/3 the strength for low alloys of each, and weighs 1/3 as much. A box
section tube doesn't take advantage of aluminum's low density, so there is
no weight advantage in using aluminum in this way. To get equal strength in
the same section (2 x 4), the aluminum tube will have to have walls that are
3X as thick as the steel one.

I don't know Jeep frames but if the frame isn't boxed (in other words, if
it's a U-channel or top-hat section rather than a rectangular tube), and if
you use box-section aluminum to replace it, it will be a great deal stiffer
and stronger. But that's because the tube is stiffer and stronger, not
because it's aluminum.

All in all, aluminum sounds like it's a lot more trouble than it's worth.
Welding that thick section and producing a *strong* weld with it will be no
picnic, unless you're an expert. It will cost a lot more for the material. I
can't speak for the galvanizing but I thought that hot-dipping a frame was
supposed to be a reasonable cost proposition.

I'm sure you'll get other opinions.

--
Ed Huntress

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 9:12 am
From: "Stu Fields"

"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b8aa051$0$31266$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>
> "mark" <markhabbi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0af62f9f-f2c6-4869-b9cc-7429fefb2ee2@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>> My original jeep CJ-7 frame has rusted out and I was thinking of
>> building a new one from aluminum. Would 2 X 4 X 1/4 wall (if that is
>> even available) box tubing have the equivalent strength of the stock
>> 1/8" wall steel frame? I would like aluminum because it will last
>> forever, no need of any paints etc..., very easy to work with and
>> cheaper than building a steel one and having it galvanized. My second
>> choice would be stainless 1/8" box tubing.
>
> This looks familiar, Mark. Didn't you post this same question here three
> or four years ago? Someone posted something similar.
>
> Anyway, as Joe Gwinn says, aluminum has 1/3 the stiffness of steel,
> roughly 1/3 the strength for low alloys of each, and weighs 1/3 as much. A
> box section tube doesn't take advantage of aluminum's low density, so
> there is no weight advantage in using aluminum in this way. To get equal
> strength in the same section (2 x 4), the aluminum tube will have to have
> walls that are 3X as thick as the steel one.
>
> I don't know Jeep frames but if the frame isn't boxed (in other words, if
> it's a U-channel or top-hat section rather than a rectangular tube), and
> if you use box-section aluminum to replace it, it will be a great deal
> stiffer and stronger. But that's because the tube is stiffer and stronger,
> not because it's aluminum.
>
> All in all, aluminum sounds like it's a lot more trouble than it's worth.
> Welding that thick section and producing a *strong* weld with it will be
> no picnic, unless you're an expert. It will cost a lot more for the
> material. I can't speak for the galvanizing but I thought that hot-dipping
> a frame was supposed to be a reasonable cost proposition.
>
> I'm sure you'll get other opinions.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

During our 8 year tour in the Marshall Islands where you can corrode a glass
thermometer, we saw jeeps made of Stainless Steel that were made in the
Phillipines. No rust.. People that owned them were not excessively rich.
Don't know what they cost, but looking back we should have bought and
shipped a couple of them to the US .

Stu Fields

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/30a39cd522bcf038?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:44 am
From: Aratzio

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:38:12 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> got double secret
probation for writing:

>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:08:30 -0800, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:36:05 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>Jane Q. <private@liberal.minded> got double secret probation for
>>writing:
>>
>>>In article <gpeio5dt19avsurdgiv7anlvbccc0cvgo9@4ax.com>, a6ahlyv02
>>>@sneakemail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:40:13 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-dog.com> got double
>>>> secret probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >.....Who ever listened to a pampas Liberal speaking?
>>>>
>>>> Define irony.
>>>
>>>I didn't know Cliff was from Argentina.
>>
>>He has a thing for grass. He likes knolls too.
>
> What a spelling flame !!

No, irony flame. Do pay attention. That sentence was proof the study
has at least anecdotal validity.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:37 am
From: "�n�hw��f"

Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> clouded the waters of pure thought
with news:lcjio51m889kftu4aqa94e1t4b58obk7c1@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:45:01 -0600, in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks,
> "�n�hw��f" <snuhwolf@yahoo.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>>Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-dog.com> clouded
>>the waters of pure thought with
>>news:4b891ec4$0$2102$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
>>
>>> On 2/27/2010 12:39 AM, Cliff wrote:
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html
>>>> "Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?"
>>>> [
>>>> The notion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is
>>>> familiar to anyone
>>>
>>> .....Who ever listened to a pampas Liberal speaking?
>>>
>>>> who has spent time on a college campus. The College Democrats
are
>>>> said to be ugly, smug and intellectual; the College Republicans,
>>>> pretty, belligerent and dumb. There's enough truth in both
>>>> stereotypes that the vast majority of college students opt not
to
>>>> join either club.
>>>>
>>>> But are liberals actually smarter? A libertarian (and, as such,
>>>> nonpartisan) researcher, Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School
of
>>>> Economics and Political Science, has just written a paper that
is
>>>> set to be published in March by the journal Social Psychology
>>>> Quarterly. The paper investigates not only whether conservatives
>>>> are dumber than liberals but also why that might be so. ...
>>>> The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent
>>>> people are more
>>>
>>> What was the Basis for "intelligence" was it problem solving,
>>> Liberals are a big fat ugly zero when it comes to being problem
>>> solvers, they live in Utopia-land and they solve gas problems by
>>> riding their Unicorns to work every day.
>>>
>>>
>>>> likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say
>>>> they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new
>>>> findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids
>>>> with higher intelligence scores were more likely
>>>
>>> Is Intelligence equal to "smart" NO. Are intelligent people more
>>> practical than the Average person, NO. Just the opposite,
>>> intelligent people are some of the most irrational people I have
>>> ever met and they can seldom function in the real world and end
up
>>> stuck in Academia where they can't get themselves in too much
>>> trouble.
>>>
>>>> to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after
>>>> the researchers controlled for socioeconomics. What's new in
>>>> Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence
>>>> might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people
>>>> are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values � that
>>>> is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment,
>>>> including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated
>>>> strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never
would
>>>> have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own
clan
>>>> and our only real technology was fire.
>>>
>>> He should have quit at "espouse evolutionary novel" and realized
>>> that egg heads are already evolutionary misfits from the Island
of
>>> egg head Misfits. They love to espouse ridiculous ideas that are
>>> of little value but even crazy people stumble onto the truth once
>>> in a while, yet we don't call them genius... *or do we* .......?
>>>
>>>> ....
>>>> ]
>>>
>>>
>>Wow...just *wow*...you did a better job of supporting Cliff's
>>argumentative thesis than I ever could! And I had a funny caveman
>>example to make the point about conservatives vs liberals to
>>interject.
>>
>>Good Job!
>>
>><golf clap>
>
> It would not be so frightening if they did not actually believe
that
> their stupidity is actually an advantage.
>

Its got packaging going for it :)
Teh bumper stickrz is way easy to memorize!

> As long as there are people like Imhofe allowed to serve in public
> office the country is fucked.
>
Its been fucked since FZ started singing about how fucked it was in
the 60's.
Its just getting worse.

NP: Freak Out

--
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CNC question
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/d284fe4a80c3c3f8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:46 am
From: Larry Jaques

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:43:38 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
<deserttraver@fishmail.net> scrawled the following:

>
>"Larry Jaques" <ljaques@diversify.invalid> wrote
>
>> No real question. I was saying they don't look like much close-up, and
>> that they're made to be viewed from a distance. Ambiance art.
>
>Ah, thanks. I can reply to that. From a distance, they look a bit like an
>ocotillo. They do look okay, but a little more attention to detail would
>have made them look a lot better in mho, plus gradual bends would have been
>a LOT more realistic. I don't know what the right angles in the rebar are

Yeah, real ocotillos don't have sharp bends. Poetic license or a
touch of the cubist overcame the poor sot, I guess.

>all about. Plus, the flowers are not anything like an ocotillo flower. I'm
>going to go to the nursery of Google and get a better idea of what a real
>flower looks like, and then use that even if I have to pound them from the
>flat pieces that are cut out, or combine several.

I hadn't seen his style until I went to Wiki. There is one which looks
something like his after all.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Ocotillo02262006.JPG

http://www.banana-tree.com/fouquiera-splendens-ocotillo.html
This is the type I saw in Ocotillo Wells, CA (the Anza-Borrego Desert
section of North America's Sonoran Desert) the closest desert to Vista
when I lived there. The same type is in the xeriscape gardens in the
San Diego Wild Animal Park, my favorite hiking spot. I walked around
while listening to African wild animal noises, smelling exotic poo,
then stumbling upon a Sumatran tiger or two, and then hiked past an
African lion and his mate. I miss that place and bikinis on the beach
in LoCal.

I would have thought they popped onto the end like an xmas tree angel
(ouch!) or a spear point. I think he used all the same shape, too,
where I'd use at least half a dozen different shaped flowers and/or
paint schemes for a bit more realistic look.

Hey, if you make a gazillion leaves and paint 'em green, it'll stay in
spring bloom all year round! It wouldn't take more than a couple
years to do, either. <vbg>

--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: American hex key, Indian hex socket screw
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/82f05e512714f946?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:16 am
From: Joseph Gwinn

In article <NEhin.371428$N07.51048@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com>,
"Wild_Bill" <wb_wildbill@XSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't think that zinc plating involves any high temperatures for
> electroplating. A prep acid bath may have been part of the process, as a
> cleaning step prior to plating.

Plating itself (regardless of the metal being plated) generates hydrogen ions
and drives them into the plated item, all at low temperature. One way to remove
the hydrogen is to heat the plated item up, allowing enough hydrogen to diffuse
away to prevent brittleness. This is done only for critical items.

> If surface embrittlement had been a factor, I think cracking, probably
> leading to a full break/snap would have taken place.

True. Preventing this bad outcome is why one slightly anneals plated items that
may be vulnerable to hydrogen embrittlement, or doesn't plate in the first place.

> Most quality hex keys/allen wrenches are already fairly hard, though I would
> think of the twisting failure as a feature for tighening fasteners, to let
> the user know the screw was as tight as it should be.

But the Craftsman hex key hasn't twisted yet.

> I agree with JR, that screws this size shouldn't be torqued to the tighness
> of cracking when they let loose.
> I prefer to use medium-hold blue threadlocker for small fasteners.. easy
> enough to remove for disassembly when required.

The screw and threaded hole (in 1018 steel) don't seem unhappy.

The intent is accurate fixing of one part with respect to the other. Great
strength isn't required, just great stability. And, it would be a real nuisance
if the screw backed out, as it will take some disassembly to get at these screws.

I may well use locktite (or epoxy) for final assembly.

I designed the assembly to allow for soft soldering, if needed to fix the parts
together stably, but it does not appear that soldering will be needed.

> In high quality equipment (aerospace), the countersink angles of the screw
> head and the base material could create a taper lock, but that's probably
> not the case in this situation. Medium hold threadlocker would likely
> eliminate a taper lock if applied to the countersink area.

From the look of the countersunk holes, some taperlocking may be happening.

> All that may have happened was that the key had a soft spot, or that it was
> one of the Unbrako-type keys.

I buy the soft-spot theory. I think all vendors endeavor to make Unbrako-style
keys, but with varying degrees of success.

> I'd feel fortunate that the key twisted insead of snapping off, which can
> result in a very sharp projection which fingers may have come in conact
> with.
> Additionally fortunate that the screw didn't require drilling to remove it.

I don't think there was any danger that the key would snap off. It twisted at
least one full turn axially quite nicely, without pretzeling. Nor did it break
when I twisted it back to more or less straight.

Drilling would be a nuisance, but not that hard because the whole assembly is
easily removed and clamped in the mill vice. A small carbide drill bit would
make short work of the screw.

Joe Gwinn

> "Joseph Gwinn" <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:joegwinn-4B3D28.20013226022010@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <e7pgo5tb3sst7hl972nuqleegs0qbumuem@4ax.com>,
> >
> > The hex socket screw seems OK, and has been done and undone many times so
> > far. If I wear the 10-32 screws out, I'll just replace them.
> >
> > The Craftsman hex key is standing up nicely too.
> >
> > The weak link is the old hex key. I wonder if the plating had something to do
> > with it, as they may have had to heat the keys to allow hydrogen from plating to
> > diffuse away, to avoid hydrogen embrittlement. The Craftsman hex keys are
> > black oxide finished, as are the hex socket screws.
> >
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement>
> >
> > Joe Gwinn
> >
> >

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Checking on post problem, Help
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/863ed0c38b450cec?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:19 am
From: Larry Jaques

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:59:40 -0700, the infamous Steve Ackman
<steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> scrawled the following:

>In <kgpfo55shoqgqamscorit3h1inpc1sf7ei@4ax.com>, on Fri, 26 Feb 2010
>07:24:46 -0800, Larry Jaques, ljaques@diversify.invalid wrote:
>
>> I wish I could figure out how to do that in Agent. I purely hate
>> seeing all these guys (whom I like) replying to the trolls day after
>> day. I'd rather filter their replies than the people themselves, but
>> Agent doesn't apply filtering to anything but author and subject, no
>> references and no text filtering, despite my whining about it to Forte
>> continually for a decade. <deep sigh #42,385 on this subject>
>
> But... you *can* filter on more than just From and
>Subject... It's in the FAQ at
>http://www.forteinc.com/agent/faq.php
>
>----------
>Can I kill-filter messages posted to a specific newsgroup?
>
>Yes. As of Agent 4, you can now create a usenet filter based on the
>Newsgroups header. To filter on this, simply enter "Newsgroups: " in the
>expression editor like you would "Author: " or "Subject: ", and the name
>of the newsgroup. You can also use a usenet filter to control crossposts.
>Here is an example:
>
> newsgroups: ({\,.+\,.+\,.+\,} and warez)
>
>That will filter based on a message being crossposted to four or more
>newsgroups where at least one of which has the word 'warez' in the name.
>
>NOTES: A new filter based on the Newsgroups will not be applied
>immediately when created, these expressions only work on message headers
>as they are being downloaded. This is because the Newsgroups header does
>not actaully exist in the overview data, so Agent simulates it based on
>other overview data. This other overview data does not exist either if you
>have set Agent to use the XHDR command instead. By default, Agent does not
>use the XHDR command.
>
>For more on how Agent 4 can manage crossposts, see the FAQ entry "How does
>the new crosspost detection in Agent 4 work?".
>----------
>
> I would think the filter above (but change warez to
>say, survivalism, limbaugh, or politics) would
>eliminate 95% of what you object to.

Thanks, Steve. I'll look into it again. I already kill
multiple-crossposts and the original spammers/trolls/jerks. I'll see
about adding limbaugh and politics at minimum. The survivalists put
out too much interesting stuff to kill outright. ;)

--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT-The Scientist
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/9a049df24330eadf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:25 am
From: Larry Jaques

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:46:04 -0600, the infamous Don Foreman
<dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> scrawled the following:

>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:09:58 -0500, Wes <clutch@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <ljaques@diversify.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Um, think "The Onion", Don. Didn't you go to the linked site? It's a
>>>spoofer.
>>
>>The potty mouth language in the piece was a give away. Now if it was a government
>>official instead of a scientist, I might have bought into the charade.
>>
>>Wes
>
>That tell eluded me. I was a senior staff research puke (not exactly
>my title but descriptive enough) in a corporate puzzle palace, managed
>to be presentable enough most days but I could blister paint as well
>as any Combat Engineer when provoked.
>
>The effect of doing that in an executive conference room awash in
>political correctness and bullshit can be interesting and amusing.

I'd purely love to have seen that, Don. Har!

>There's something to be said for use of language appropriate to a
>situation that may not be appropriate in other situations.
>
>Almost 30 years ago a recently-divorced woman of about my age showed
>up at work as a temp secretary. She was quiet but friendly, witty and
>quite attractive. She had a BSBA Magna Cum Laude but she also had a
>kid to support, she could type a million words a minute or so and she
>needed a job.
>
>A young technician who worked for me played a trick on her, came up
>behind her and poked her in the ribs. The soft-spoken buttoned-up
>40-ish lady would be startled and what a good joke, right? Not quite.
>She read him off fit to do a drill instructor proud, shrivel the
>dingle of a Hells Angel, blister the paint on the loading dock. It
>wasn't loud but nobody within earshot missed a word of it. It was
>wonderful. Young toughguy hotdog Shawn looked like he was gonna melt
>down in a puddle of piddle.

ROTFLMAO!

>A pursuit ensued. She wasn't lookin' for a man so soon after divorce
>but she didn't run so fast I couldn't catch her. It took a while, but
>she eventually became my companion and teammate and after a couple of
>decades my wife. Best thing that ever happened to me.

Most excellent story, Don.

>It's still a very bad idea to piss her off. I love that about her!

Still carrying the Nomex earplugs, hmm?

--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ping Don Foreman: ICD Alert
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/73fe240947f1f05b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:31 am
From: Larry Jaques

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:57:36 -0500, the infamous Wes
<clutch@lycos.com> scrawled the following:

>Don Foreman <dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>
>>Those without reason rely on rabid reports. The brakes are quite
>>sufficient to overcome even the V6 engine at WOT and stop the car.
>
>I wonder what the increased stopping distance is if the engine is WOT and the car is
>already traveling at say, 70 mph? How much heat can you dump into the rotors before
>serious brake fade occurs?

First stop like that? Probably 30% more, once you get over the shock
of WFO continuing after the foot is on the OTHER pedal. (Don uses the
tamer term for WFO ;)

>Back to the throttle pedal. Would it be reasonable to depress it by hand and let up at
>points feeling for a very weak return force indicating a lot of friction?

Our feet are more in tune with any possible glitches and changes in
throttle pressure, or variations thereof. The foot/mind/habit
connection is strong and we notice a change right away. Well, those of
us who are awake and aware enough to notice, anyway. (That includes
most folks here. Dunno 'bout the libs. <gd&r>)

--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 9:00 am
From: Larry Jaques

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:09:16 -0600, the infamous Frnak McKenney
<frnak@far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> scrawled the following:

>On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0600, Don Foreman <dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:10:30 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
>><too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 25, 9:50�pm, Larry Jaques <ljaq...@diversify.invalid> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Oh, please, Wes. �Most of us here could deal with a WFO throttle
>>>> without a problem or crash. �Most of the affected vehicles have
>>>> 4-wheel disc brakes, too. It's simply not a problem in the vast
>>>> majority of the recalled vehicles...yet.
>>>
>>>Better think again.
>>>
>>>Several reports now indicate that the brakes do not stop the car.
>>>
>>>TMT
>>
>> Those without reason rely on rabid reports. The brakes are quite
>> sufficient to overcome even the V6 engine at WOT and stop the car.
>
>I caught part of the Congressional Hearing one one of the C-SPANx
>channels the other day. The testimony of one of the witnesses, a
>woman who described in great detail her experience with a "runaway"
>Lexus, left me puzzled.
>
>She clearly stated that she was able to shift into each of the car's
>gears

Without overrevving the engine? What, was the throttle stuck at a
scary 05% open? CONgress would call that a runaway condition, I'm
sure.

>and that doing so had no effect on the problem. She also said
>that she had been unable to slow the car down using her brakes.
>
>Since she had time to call her husband on her cell phone (presumably
>a hands-free setup), whatever she was experiencing evidently lasted
>for a while.

That blows the hell out of the "runaway" concept, doesn't it?

>Here's my question: With a Lexus transmission, presumably an automatic,
>how are you able to shift into Reverse at highway speeds? I'm fairly
>certain that if I ever succeeded in doing this in a manual shifter
>I'd have left evidence all over the highway in the form of fluid and
>little gears.

I was stunned one day when I had reached down to feel the floor outlet
to see if the heater vent was working in my '90 F-150. I was doing
about 30mph after leaving my driveway and as my hand came back up to
the steering wheel, it hit the shifter and knocked it into reverse. In
about 2 seconds, I sat on the road in complete silence in a non-moving
truck. It had actually gone into reverse and stalled the engine,
stopping the truck. That blew me away. I had no idea that an auto
trans would allow that today, with all the other nanny crap we're
"protected" by.

I got really lucky that day and the tranny was still in one piece
after my stupid little episode.

I'll have to ask Toyota if that could happen in the Tundra, though I
doubt I'll ever accidentally hit the shifter again.

>Is this an "electric" shift of some kind that would have allowed the
>driver to request/demand the shift into Reverse but refused to do so?
>
>Similarly, how would one expect a successful shift into First/Low to
>affect a "runaway" engine? Wouldn't it at least have slowed down?

And why don't people run the logic of the situation and remember that
the key which starts the engine can also turn it off, IMMEDIATELY?
(Prius not included)

--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Glenn Beck's authoritarian manifesto
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/03ecfef2321238cb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:42 am
From: D Murphy

sittingduck <duck@spamherelots.com> wrote in
news:Xns9D2D7BA8EBFBduckrulestheuniverse@nomail.afraid.org:

> D Murphy wrote:
>
>> I'm not offended by any of it. There's a difference in what they do
>> and if you can't see it, I can't do anything about it.
>
> No, there's actually not all that much difference. There's just a
> whole lot MORE of the crazy talk coming from the right. And it comes
> from their MAINSTREAM, not just the fringes. The rightwing media is
> CHOCK FULL of stuff way more crazy than what you are whining about
> from the left.
>

So now I'm whining? Actually I'm pointing out facts that you are failing to
respond to. And now you want to shift the argument to "crazy talk"? Who
gets to define crazy? I didn't post some screed insinuating that Glenn Beck
was a racist, you did. Where is the evidence?

You seem long on accusations but short on specifics. Fox is on 24/7 and the
left employs a host of folks whose only job is to find something, anything
that can be construed as offensive. So you should be able to assemble a
list of Fox's transgressions with ease.

I also noticed that you've chosen not to respond to evidence of actual
racism among the left.

Dan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chinese digital caliper - first report
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/c9953a5065106a17?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:57 am
From: Joseph Gwinn

In article <3Zidnat_mNbSChTWnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@molalla.net>,
"Richard W." <raweich@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Joseph Gwinn" <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:joegwinn-0DA636.09054024022010@news.giganews.com...
> >I just got a $30 Harbor Freight (item 47257) six inch digital caliper, from
> > the noodle factory, partly as an experiment, and ultimately to give to my 9
> > year old nephew.
> >
> > It is functional, albeit more crudely made and less accurate than a
> > Mitutoyo (which costs four times as much). The random error of the 47257 seems to
> > be about 0.002", largely due to head looseness. I tightened the head gib, ...
[snip]
> >
> >
> > I will use this caliper for a while in the shop and see how it goes.
> >
> > Joe Gwinn
>
> I have the 4" and the 6" from HF. They work just fine in a work environment.
> Several of the guys have them now. Change the battery about once a year.
> Seem to be just as accurate as anything else, when measuring the same part
> with different brands. I prefer the 4" HF to my 8" Mitutoyo. It get into
> tight areas better. Yes there is a difference in the feel when you slide
> them open and closed, but they measure the same.

I am using the HF 6" the test in my shop. The 4" may be a good idea.

But I think it's worthwhile to hand-polish the bar to make the sliding action
smoother.

> When my 12 dial gives up I
> will get the 12" HF to replace it with. Since I don't use the 12" much I may
> never need to replace it.

I use the DRO on my mill for long items.

> I have worn out 3 of the 8" digital Mitutoyos over
> the years and tossed them. Except for one I use for auto repair.

When a digital caliper wears out, what exactly goes bad?

Joe Gwinn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tarnow lathes?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/c3da114c072ca535?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 8:59 am
From: "Dave H."

"Richard W." wrote...
>
> If it's in good shape it not a bad lathe. The one's I ran were built in
> the late 70's and early 80's. They seem to chatter easy on long shafts. I
> think they needed more iron in the bed on the longer lathes. (20" swing
> 10' centers) Seemed fine for chuck work though, which is most of what we
> did on it. Can't say much about a small one like the one you are looking
> at. It may be just fine. Although if I was in the market for a new lathe
> they would be near the bottom of the list.
>

Thanks for the feedback, Richard, may I pick your brains a little more?

I'd mostly be using it for work in the chuck, things like machining hubs and
clutches I guess, and boring smallish castings on the carriage with a b/c
boring bar, occasional work on driveshafts etc., it'd be an addition to my
tools for working on / modifying motorcycles - I don't imagine I'm likely to
be doing anything that would tax it too much :)

I'd be interested to know why you'd put them at the bottom of the list,
though - rigidity? This one (the TUB32 model) comes in at around 2.2 tons
for the 12" swing, 40" and is quite a bit heavier than a Colchester of that
size, sounds like it should have plenty of iron in it! Newer ones may have
gone the same way as a lot of manufacturers' kit though, lighter castings,
18g sheet steel where cast iron would have once been used...

If it's a matter of "fit and finish", I wouldn't be expecting too much from
the eastern bloc (I've seen their motorcycles from the 60's!), if it's down
to durability and reliability that's a whole 'nother thing?

While I think of it, it runs (as delivered from the factory) a 10HP 3-phase
motor - reckon I'd get away with a lower-output VFD if I kept the cuts
fairly light? 7.5KW VFD's cost an Imperial Arm and Leg (more than I can pick
the lathe up for, anyway) as does getting the 'lectric co. to install
3-phase power, but here in the UK 3KW (4HP) are getting to be reasonable -
and 10HP in a 12" swing lathe seems kinda generous anyway! I'm still at the
stage of factoring in rental of a plant trailer and truck to tug it, new
reinforced concrete base for the 'shop, 50 yards of heavy armoured cable,
VFD etc. and want to keep the collateral damage to my wallet down...

Thanks, Dave H.
--
(The engineer formerly known as Homeless)

"Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men" -
Douglas Bader

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 9:18 am
From: john

Dave H. wrote:
> "Richard W." wrote...
>>
>> If it's in good shape it not a bad lathe. The one's I ran were built in
>> the late 70's and early 80's. They seem to chatter easy on long shafts. I
>> think they needed more iron in the bed on the longer lathes. (20" swing
>> 10' centers) Seemed fine for chuck work though, which is most of what we
>> did on it. Can't say much about a small one like the one you are looking
>> at. It may be just fine. Although if I was in the market for a new lathe
>> they would be near the bottom of the list.
>>
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Richard, may I pick your brains a little more?
>
> I'd mostly be using it for work in the chuck, things like machining hubs and
> clutches I guess, and boring smallish castings on the carriage with a b/c
> boring bar, occasional work on driveshafts etc., it'd be an addition to my
> tools for working on / modifying motorcycles - I don't imagine I'm likely to
> be doing anything that would tax it too much :)
>
> I'd be interested to know why you'd put them at the bottom of the list,
> though - rigidity? This one (the TUB32 model) comes in at around 2.2 tons
> for the 12" swing, 40" and is quite a bit heavier than a Colchester of that
> size, sounds like it should have plenty of iron in it! Newer ones may have
> gone the same way as a lot of manufacturers' kit though, lighter castings,
> 18g sheet steel where cast iron would have once been used...
>
> If it's a matter of "fit and finish", I wouldn't be expecting too much from
> the eastern bloc (I've seen their motorcycles from the 60's!), if it's down
> to durability and reliability that's a whole 'nother thing?
>
> While I think of it, it runs (as delivered from the factory) a 10HP 3-phase
> motor - reckon I'd get away with a lower-output VFD if I kept the cuts
> fairly light? 7.5KW VFD's cost an Imperial Arm and Leg (more than I can pick
> the lathe up for, anyway) as does getting the 'lectric co. to install
> 3-phase power, but here in the UK 3KW (4HP) are getting to be reasonable -
> and 10HP in a 12" swing lathe seems kinda generous anyway! I'm still at the
> stage of factoring in rental of a plant trailer and truck to tug it, new
> reinforced concrete base for the 'shop, 50 yards of heavy armoured cable,
> VFD etc. and want to keep the collateral damage to my wallet down...
>
> Thanks, Dave H.

If you bolt the lathe to the concrete floor you can make it a lot moe
rigid. Also proper leveling makes a big difference. There is an art to
doing long thin parts without getting chatter, a steady rest or follower
rest being manditory.

I would not recommend using an underrated VFD. I would spring for a
single phase motor of about 5 hp or so and eliminate all your other
electrical problems. It would probably be cheaper in the long run and
would also make the lathe easier to sell.

John

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Sunday, February 28, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 14 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts