Search Results for 'zan'

[achParticipant @ach]

<p style=”text-align: left;”>Heres the photos, including one I forgot to add to the last post of the pillar drill before I cleaned it.</p>

[JohnFParticipant @johnf59703]

Hello Andy,
I to am like many others on the forum 82 on Saturday ! Spent my life in engineering and have a shed load of tools etc but don’t have the problem of disposal, both son and grandson are engineers and daughter has keen interest in all things practical so my kit will be sorted out by them.

N. Yorkshire is a pretty large area and I understand if you don’t want to pinpoint your location — very wise !  However I am in North Lancs and travel around the dales etc so if you wish to private message me with your location or phone number I would be willing to assist If its possible. No interest in purchasing tools but happy to assist if I can.

Like Zan I have an XL file with most of my larger items listed when and where purchased and the price paid, no small tools except higher value items.

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

I am unsure if copper contacts are a good idea. I would be tempted to use tungsten contacts. But then I am not really cognizant of your requirements.

Andrew.

[Mark Salzedo 1Participant @marksalzedo1]

Zan – thank you for your comments. I have sent you a private message.

[Dave WoottonParticipant @davewootton]

Hi Zan

No need for a search or to be signed in on Proboards to find the post, Just go to page 2 of General Chat, and it is at present the top posting ” Regulator” original thread started by Miken, on page 2 of that post.

Dave

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

No, there’s so much work gone into it that we don’t want to replace the whole regulator if we can cure the problem!

 

Stephen –

Aha!

You could be on the case there, now Zan’s shown us the drawing.

It recommends lapping the Valve Plate and Port Face to each other.

That is a recipe for introducing tiny concave / convex faces that separate the components when operated. Especially given the Valve Plate is an odd shape and a lot bigger than the Port Face, making it difficult to lap them together to sufficient accuracy.

 

{Ghastly dimensioning “system” that CBR used for this odd-shaped part!}

 

Zan – 

Try as Stephen suggests: lapping the two parts on a third, flat surface.

I’d test them first by blueing the surfaces then rubbing them on the lapping-plate to see if that shows anything. Use marking-out fluid or felt-tip pen.

…..

[The old, or original, way to make surface-plates and similar was to scrape or lap three at a time to each other in rotation: Plate A to Plate B, B to C, A to C.  Using just two risks a concave / convex match.]

……

Regarding the regulator not closing on the run, if that happens pull the reverser straight into mid-gear and apply the brakes. Not the opposite gear except in emergency, as that can damage the locomotive.

I had to do that on our club’s loco on its first ever event – for a somewhat similar fault though its regulator is the rotating disc type. I forget what we eventually diagnosed, but I think it was slight un-flatness. We didn’t need replace anything, just improve what was there.

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Yes as I said in the first reply 50rpm would be quite likely for this engine.

So may people when you say beam engines think of big waterworks pumping engines but they do not consider the smaller ones used in workshops, breweries etc

Again one only needs look at some of George Watkins books where he gives sizes and speeds of the engines and you can find small beam engines doing 50 or more rpm and they are rotative driving the shafts via gears to work Liquor pumps (on the mezanine)

[Steve HuckinsParticipant @stevehuckins53362]

Jason I have replied to your email to me and have only just looked at your forum reply. So I may have missed the details you supplied here. I see that Dora is the same as Suzanne. I could try looking further for some pictures. The build article is very useful thank you.
regards.

Steve

I am studying the drawings for the Kennions Suzanne (now supplied by EKP) that I am hoping to start soon. Needless to say, there is a lot to take in and I can see a few discrepancies already that I will need to understand and address. But I can see the photo of a finished engine on EKPs web site and it helps to physically see how it looks when finished. But I have tried to find other pictures and there doesn’t seem to be anything else anywhere.

i was wondering if anyone on the forum has completed this engine and whether they may have some photos that they may be prepared to share.  Or perhaps some other info about where to find some.

Finally, any help with advice, build notes or anything helpful would be much appreciated.

Thanks to all

Steve

 

[Steve HuckinsParticipant @stevehuckins53362]

Jason, that first picture is very like my set up but the bearings are not split, just solid. I see the need to machine the surface of the bottom one now and will factor it in going forward. I feel somewhat lacking in the knowledge of technical details that many on the forum are quoting. Obviously I am really happy to learn whatever I can to get the best results. But in effect I am a 70 year old apprentice. Much of what is discussed goes over my head. But undaunted I will continue to pick everyone’s brains. So far I’ve completed several stationery engines and am moving up to a larger Suzanne once the PM3 is in its cabinet. Quite a step up but no point avoiding the challenge.

regards

Steve

Sorry, I’m using the ME skill base to ask for advice on old car jobs again…

I’m rebuilding the head on a 1937 Riley, and need to remake the copper pipe feeds to the rocker shafts.  These are made of ⅛” OD copper pipe, with a banjo fitting soldered on one end and a brass cone fitting on the other.  I’m struggling to find new parts for the cone fitting – see photo below for what’s on the old pipes.  Sizes are: copper pipe OD is 0.125″, and brass nut to retain the cone is 0.375″ across flats – I don’t know what the thread size is.  The car suppliers all sell a 7/16 (0.4375)” nut and cone to fit ⅛” pipe, which doesn’t work as the nut is too big to thread onto the feed stud from the block.  Any suggestions as to what size this nut and cone union are, and how best to do the soldering (ordinary solder, or silver, without melting the components?) would be very welcome.

Thanks,

Roger

[glynboy12Participant @glynboy12]

[John PurdyParticipant @johnpurdy78347]

Beeza650

I don’t use the drill to mill for all the reasons stated, but I find a quill lock very convenient for lining up the drill on the work piece. Here is how I added one to my drill which is very similar to yours. To add it I removed the quill and drilled and tapped, (in my case 5/16-24 UNF) a hole through the front of the casting, then turned up the brass locking screw and cross drilled the head for the 3/16″ dia. steel tommy bar which was “loctited’ in. Before re-installing the quill I made sure any swarf from the drilling or tapping was cleaned out.

John

[Paul McDonoughParticipant @paulmcdonough43628]

Cheers zan, I can see the gearing up for a small production run is the way to go if I’m going to make em!

[William AyerstParticipant @williamayerst55662]

Thanks, Amadeal have confirmed they are sold out rather than coming soon with no ETA on a re-order, let alone arrival back on shore. I’d have thought the chinese/indian suppliers might have some available but I’m coming up short again 🙁

With regard to a new drawbar – thank you for the suggestions – I like the idea of a 10mm thread on a piece of 3/8″ bar if I can get it to work that way. It looks like my current drawbar has been fabricated rather than being stock:  someone has welded the retaining ring at the top, and welded the 3/8 BSW threaded portion to the bottom of the same rod.

In terms of fabricating my own replacements (one 10mm @ 3/8″ dia and one a standard 3/8 BSW thread)  am I going to be OK with a cross-pin + loctite the end cap/retaining ring section on top, or is it going to require silver brazing?

I found a drawing online a while ago of what I’ll need – but obviously in this drawing the thread is oversized:

Many thanks,

William

[Colin ReedParticipant @colinreed51485]

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I’ll attempt the repair using tig.

Sifbronze 1 doesn’t look like it’s an appropriate filler for the tig process as it contains almost 40% zinc. Sif No. 8 or Sif 968 look more suitable. I’m leaning more towards the no. 8 as it looks the more useful general purpose tig brazing rod for any future projects.

Ultimately I think you’re all correct and I should remake in stainless steel, and I like the solution that @Zan used with the spear. That’s a future task though as we need the engine back up and running for another rally next weekend.

Colin

[Ramon WilsonParticipant @ramonwilson3]

Hi Zan,

This design, I’m sure, lends itself to a decent degree of personalisation but do make certain of any dimensional changes as there are so many parts that need to be in more or less perfect alignment. I think I made a calculation error on the hotwell extension, not realised until I fitted the pump levers when it became noticeable – not much but enough to realise that somewhere I had made a mistake despite double, and more, checking of everything. I did in fact have to take the slightest amount off the top to give a tiny clearance. I went back over my figures but could not find where the mistake was made.

Looks like you are off to a good start – I hope your journey with it proves as enjoyable as mine has been👍

‘paravoz’ – thanks for your comments. It is a good way to make a ‘casting’ and though the method will certainly withstand steam temperatures of 60 psi it is absolutely perfect for anything to be run on air without any real safety concerns if carried out carefully.

Best – Tug

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Woe, woe, and thrice woe!  lathes.co.uk in normally excellent, but macchect’s lathe isn’t there.   Tony shows a plain lathe, and macchect has a lead-screw and change-gears (good news).

First problem is it’s in bits!  Don’t panic, the layout is typical of many other lathes, so their photos will give a good idea of what goes where.  This is the Myford ML1 (photo from lathes.co.uk):

 

 

Begin, I suggest, by re-assembling the parts as arranged on the Myford, without worrying about the gears.  Ask about them later!   You will need a flat belt and electric motor, usually driven by a counter-shaft arrangement (3 more pulleys on a hinged arrangement).   Modern motors and electronic speed controllers provide alternatives worth considering, but there’s much to be said for the traditional two belt approach.   It’s a discussion.

Once together look for problems!  Missing and badly worn parts etc.   One nasty on lathes of this era is a cracked  headstock due to overtightening in an attempt to correct bearing wear.   If anything like that is found ask again – may be the lathe is “BER”, beyond economic repair, or requires a well-equipped workshop to fix it…

Welcome to the forum.

Dave

 

 

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi. a few days ago, I was looking for a suitable size piece of thickish cast iron, about 50mm diameter, so not having anything like it, I dug out some cast iron feet that were ripped off a 10″ David Brown reduction box, which happen the have a serious malfunction, which stopped the machine dead.

So I choose the one that had the least amount of work of cutting a piece out, with my bandsaw in its vertical position, and after a little bit more trimming today, I was able to skim the uneven side off.

I then scribed a circle on the other side, which was the side that was bolted down to the machine bed, which allowed me to set it up in my slim four jaw chuck, reasonable central, using my 6″ RT and a scriber mounted on a magnetic base. which will now allow me to skim the diameter true , to the biggest size I can get.

Regards Nick.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi, the general consensus to traditional model engineering seems to be model engineering meaning, but I think it can be almost anything you like that you engineer, or has been engineered, as long as it represents something of full size, and being smaller or bigger, and working or non working.

e.g. This was a kit that I built. made of wood, although I didn’t make the individual pieces.

Regards Nick.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Zan, just click the date and time in the right hand column where I have highlighted and that will take you to the last post

The old forum only took you to the last page not the last post.

 

[Zan]

On Zan Said:

It’s worth removing the apron .  I was amazed by all the rubbish in mine   A good clean out is a periodic essential maintenance task

I had to remove mine a few years ago and was also amazed at the amount of swarf etc that had accumulated  so I fashioned a cover from alloy sheet to close as much of the gap around the top of the LHS of the saddle over the lead screw. Works fairly well.  I think I saw on the Myford stand at the ME show they now produce a similar unit from pressed steel.

John

[Zan]

On Zan Said:

perhaps your angle is for true bevel gears?

The angles come from the two pitch cones. If the shafts are at 90 degrees, the angles must be complementary.

In your reply above, you have provided a third angle. So now we have 64.26, 63.24 and 63.26 to choose from.

Parallal depth is a method of manufacture (cutting) not anything related to calculating dimensions. We had some discussion of this here, and the original (100 year old) parallel depth references are provided:

Uniform Depth Bevel Gear,,,”MODULAR” not “DP”

It seems to me to be dangerous to use numbers from someone else’s work without knowing how they have been derived. Is there any online, downloadable version of the Lammas document so we can all see it and play bevel bingo?

See also:

https://www.daycounter.com/Calculators/Bevel-Gear-Calculator.phtml

https://www.otvinta.com/bevel.html

[Zan]

On 31 October 2024 at 14:55 Zan Said:

Slope  angles are  ( pinion ) 26.34. And  (wheel) 64.26 degrees

 

Od= opd + (2 x cos 63.24 / dp) =  0.7 + (2x .896 / 32)  = 0.756

What is the total angle of the gears? 64.26 + 26.34 does not add up to 90.0 (that is not necessarily a mistake, but is unusual).

Where does 63.24 come from?

Are both of these simply typos. in your post or something more serious?

I was under the impression that the slope angles of a 1:2 pair at 90 degrees would be arctan(0.5)=26.56 and arctan(2.0)=63.43 but this may be irrelevant to your own construction.

[Mark EasingwoodParticipant @markeasingwood33578]

It shows up for me.

(Firefox/Win 10/logged in)