Member postings for John Purdy

Bob

As Alan says its part of a dial indicator unit, specifically for converting a rear plunger dial indicator to a DTI type of indicator. The mounting rod on the dial indicator is held in the 1/4" hole by the thumb screw and the rocking lever is adjusted to rest against the plunger on the dial indicator. The other end of the rocking lever then functions the same as the lever on a DTI.

If you go to Travers Tool.com and search for their part # 57-051-196 (Starrett  part # 196A1Z) you will see a picture of it.

John

Edited By John Purdy on 01/11/2019 18:08:55

Philip

I have just completed a ST#1 (see my post of 21 Aug. in the "work in progress" thread) and it turns over with some drag which I put down to the ring friction in the bore, but I wouldn't call it tight. It uses the supplied ST rings and are fitted with an approximate 3-4 thou gap. During initial testing I assembled it without the rings and it that state it just spun over easily and if the flywheel was given a good spin it would coast for 2 or 3 revs. Try assembling yours without the rings and see how it goes, it may be just the ring to bore friction that is causing the tightness. How thick are your rings? The ones from ST in mine are .0955 thick, which are by all accounts considerably thicker than optimal. The wall pressure may be higher than optimal. I found that I could remove the rings without disassembling the whole top end by removing the the top cover, and with the piston at TDC the nut could be undone and the top half of the piston unscrewed. Lowering the crank to BDC then left the rings in the top of the cyl. and could be removed. With the crank back up at TDC the piston could the be re-assembled. I must have done this a half dozen times!

John

Edited By John Purdy on 12/10/2019 18:40:52

Philip

I've sent you a PM.

John

Bob

Tubal Cain did a series on the building of a 5" shop boiler in ME starting in Vol. 144 #3591 18 Aug. 1978. You might find it useful.

John

Pete

I forgot to say the one I made is a bell type and is quite small. The bell is 1/2" dia by 3/4" long with an overall height of about 1 5/8".

John

The series in ME on the build that Jason refers to started in #4568 of 1 Sept 2017.

John

Pete

The article in ME by Bob Branmson was in Vol. 205 2010 #4289. There was also another by Peter Olds in the 4 Jun 1982 issue, Vol. 148 #3682. I made my whistle for my 5" "Gemma" to the design of the smaller one in Peter's article and it works well on both air and steam. It is fed off the side of the dome and runs totally dry producing a high pitched sound in the neighborhood of around 2500-3000 Hz. I have both articles if you are interested.

John

Yes Michael, that is what I thinking when I said in the next section of that post of mounting it on an angle plate on the mill so that it is vertical and plunging down with end mills till it is almost the right dia, then boring both sides to final dimensions.

I just dug out the two series in EIM on building the engine ( the Cygnet Jun 81 and the 5A Aug 04) and noticed on a picture of the rough soleplate that the openings for the bearings are cast in as semi circles. I wonder if the caps are the same. That would make boring simple as you would be starting with a round under sized hole.

John

Thanks for the replies. The ideas are somewhat like I had in mind except I hadn't thought of doing it like Jason suggests, that's very similar to the way the main bearings of the #1 and #9 are, among others. The problem I can see with boring it out between centres, or in the mill, is that you are trying to bore out a solid half circle .468" deep over a .468" deep open half circle. Obviously can't be done in one pass, (not with our machinery anyway), meaning that the boring bar plus bit has to fit through a .468" hole in the lower half, not practical on the lathe but could be done in the mill by successively increasing the dia of the sweep of the the bit in the bar and moving the bar towards the centre of the final bore. The other option I can see in the mill would be to successively remove the excess part of the upper cap with a series of increasing sizes of end mill till almost full size then use the boring bar to go through both sides increasing the bore dia slightly to ensure both are in line, and make new brasses to suit. I figured I'd be making new brasses anyway as I only have one, and have some suitable material. Of course the other much more expensive option would be to buy a new soleplate an bearing caps and start over!! ( currently 134.50 + shipping half way around the world X 1.7 to convert to Can.$)

John

I have a part built ST 5A that I would like to finish. Most of the machining has been done. The sole plate has already been bored out for the bearing caps and the bearings, but one of the bearing caps and one bearing are missing. I can get a new cap casting from Stuart Models but my problem is if I machine it to fit the existing seat in the sole plate and fasten it down how do I bore out the bottom of the new cap to match the existing cutout in the sole plate and still be in line with the other side ? Anyone got any suggestions?

John

Thanks all for the complimentary comments.

George, the colours, I mixed up from scratch as I couldn't find anything like I liked in either paint tins or spray cans from builders or auto supply shops. The brown is what I'd call a "bright chocolate" mixed up from a quite dark brown with some red added and then a little yellow to lighten it up. The cream was white with a little yellow to make a bright cream, then a drop or two of the chocolate to tone it down. It actually is a little darker that shows in the pictures, the colour balance has made it come out quite a bit whiter. There was much mixing up of drops of paint on a sheet of paper till I got what I liked ( then trying to remember what I had used!).

John

Edited By John Purdy on 17/08/2019 17:08:16

    Finished my Stuart Turner #1. Bought the castings second hand in 1996, They were initially bought in the late '60s or early '70s, and when I got them they had been through 2 or 3 (or more) owners. Everything was there except the rings were broken. Finally got around to starting it on 5 Oct. last year.
    Have run it on air for around an hour to run it in and it now will run down to 12-13 psi. The rings are producing quit a bit of friction in the bore. I noticed that at the slowest speed it runs quite unevenly. After a bit of head scratching and watching it was apparent that it was slowing down over TDC the once about 30 deg beyond it would speed up down and over BDC only to slow down again approaching TDC.
    So as an experiment I removed the rings and the piston rod packing and found it turns over extremely freely (the piston has about 2-3 thou clearance in the bore).  When turned over slowly by hand and the piston gets to about 20-30 deg after TDC  it  rotates by it's own weight down to BDC, slightly beyond then back to BDC. So it would appear that the slow speed unevenness is due to the fact that there is no counterbalances on the crank to compensate for the reciprocating mass of the piston, rod, crosshead and con rod. Might look at fitting some in the manner of the ST#5 as an experiment.

John

Edited By John Purdy on 16/08/2019 19:32:52

Edited By John Purdy on 16/08/2019 19:36:11

Edited By John Purdy on 16/08/2019 19:41:39

The series in ME that the aircraft in the link in the first post in this thread was based on, (and in ME 4248), was titled  "Comet"  and was a three part series by David Parker starting in vol. 162 #3848 5-18 May 1989 and was a full construction series detailing the engine and boiler for a model aircraft.  It also included outline drawings of the aircraft.

John

Edited By John Purdy on 29/07/2019 18:46:03

Edited By John Purdy on 29/07/2019 18:59:01

Well I attempted to straighten them with a hammer on the anvil and it worked OK but it took a lot harder hits than I thought it would, they definitely weren't soft, the hammer left no marks on them.. They are not perfectly straight but close enough so that they will clean up. Just hope there are no unseen fatigue cracks that will cause them to break when it machine them.  Probably might have been better to put them in the kiln and heat them to red heat and then hammer them straight. Hindsight is great!

John

Edited By John Purdy on 17/07/2019 18:51:00

Brian

As I said the when I machined the current one the swarf came off as small little cures more like hard brass and there was none of the black graphite dust you get from normal cast iron. The castings are listed on the Stuart parts list sheet as "mallable iron" as were the con rod, crankshaft, and the piston rod/cross head. The reverse gear parts list lists the eccentric rods, expansion link, drag link, connecting link and reversing lever all in "mallable iron".

John

John

Thanks for the link, it basically confirms what I thought I knew about mallable iron, and why it is more ductile than cast. I was thinking someone here might have had worked with forming mallable iron and could tell me their experience. I will try and straighten them and if not successful can always carve them out of solid!

John

I have a set of original Stuart Turner (not the current Stuart Models) castings for the reversing gear for the #1 engine. The eccentric rods are supplied as mallable iron castings and they are both warped to the extent that they won't clean up to the desired 5/32" thickness as required, as there is minimum machining allowance on them. My question for any one who has worked with mallable iron is, are they ductile enough to hammer strait or are they going to snap like normal cast iron would.

These two appear to be identical castings to the one I have just finished machining for my #1 (castings of the the same vintage). It was only slightly warped and machined beautifully, much like mild steel except that the chips came off as little chunks, much like cast iron or hard brass.

Manfred

The series in ME was by Tubal Cain and was in Vol. 170 and ran from issue #3942 2-15 Apr 1993 to #3950 6-19 Aug 1993.  I've sent you a PM.

John

Edited By John Purdy on 04/07/2019 17:08:22

Edited By John Purdy on 04/07/2019 17:16:20

Malc

When I go my Myford S7 back in '77 I very quickly got fed up with the Myford oiler which seemed to put oil every where except where it was wanted. So I modified a standard pump oil can with a nipple as in the photo. The end is reduced to slightly smaller than the hole in the oil nipple and is drilled #60. I also filed a groove across the end with a knife needle file to allow the oil a passage around the sealing ball in the oil nipple. Disregard the bevel on the end of the nipple, that's just wear. I've actually replaced it a couple of times as the small end tends to get banged up. The oil now goes only into the oil nipple not all over the place but where it's not wanted.

John

I used a very similar rig to yours to do the same thing and I sealed both ends with a sheet of rubber from an old inner tube. That worked well. It's soft enough that it seals the tube ends even if they aren't all exactly the same length. I have copies of all EIMs and seem to recall the article you mention, will try and find it.

John