andypugh
-
Posts
794 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Articles
Store
Downloads
Everything posted by andypugh
-
Would these do?
-
Looking at the eccentric layout of the punches I think that these probably stayed in one piece (which would make for a stronger but impossible to repair radiator)
-
It would also be an easy way to get back-relief, Though my current design has turned features on the punch and follower. (the earlier link should now show a rather re-worked design, using much smaller bits of tool steel.
-
Looks tricky to make, how about you try it 🙂 I have been slightly busy...
-
With the latest update, this is less of an issue as I abandoned the square follower design, so the square die recess is only 12mm rather than 30mm deep. This makes it rather easier to mill with a 4mm cutter.
-
And bigger is easier, as I don't have a slotting head...
-
I have what I think might be a workable (and makeable) design. https://a360.co/3pagTbb
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_press_tools says: In general, cutting force (CF) can be calculated using the formula: CF =L x S x ζmax The square has approx 90mm perimeter, is 0.25mm thick and the shear strength is about 275N/mm2: So to blank out the square needs about 6kN. Zoro list a 50mm dia die spring with a stiffness of 700N/mm so even that would be compressed by 8.5mm. Cutting force could probably be reduced by faceting the die, as is done with Q-max cutters.
-
What is the corner radius? (not that there necessarily is a corner radius on the original ones) The torus is easy, I think.
-
I have given that some thought, and I think it has to be a second-op, I can't see a way to get the tip-turned shape out of a die that can also make the petals.
-
Each facet of a hexagon would make 1/6 of a gill.....
-
It seems that the faceted punch works just fine, which simplifies things:
-
It might need to be pointier. I think that, ideally it would be a double-action, where the square and inner ring is punched first,, then the spike comes up through the clamped, shape-locked ring and bursts it. But I don't know how you would do that. Possibly with a spring, but a spring stiff enough to punch the initial hole?
-
Ironically the tin with contents would probably have listed at a lower price.
-
I wonder if it is really as simple as a pentagonal pyramidal spike inside a square hole? (ie. like this https://a360.co/3pagTbb ) And would a hexagon work?
-
If you can find them at a decent price, this style of threading tools make a lovely whitworth-form thread in a single operation. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284087318863
-
They would cut the thread that they had tooling for. In 1934 that would have been BSW / BSF. They wouldn't have randomly chosen (pre-ISO) metric or UN / Sellers just because it is theoretically cheaper to single-point. They might well have chosen to forego the crest rounding for the reasons you mention, but the thread angle is still rather more likely to be 55 than 60 (or 47.5, or 80).
-
Or you are under-thinking it when you suggest that an 1"-16 UN thread is an option. I am saying that it is unlikely that the thread form is UN, it is very likely to be Whitworth, and the two are not compatible. This has nothing to do with any of the standards, it has to do with the basic shape of the threads, which differ significantly.
-
I found a YouTube video of someone making their own: https://youtu.be/lw1b58kITxQ I was wondering if the lead angle of a thread affects the apparent thread angle when projected, but after a bit of 3D modelling, I have decided that the answer is "not enough to cause confusion"
-
But would a 1934 British car be using Unified threads? (Unlikely, Unified threads were invented during WW11) I just finished an M77 x 1 thread. I chose that size as I had a 76mm recess that needed a thread, and the 1mm threading tool was the one in the holder. If it had been the 1.25 insert then it might have been an M77.25 x 1.25 thread instead.
-
Or, indeed for fun. I made an M14.75 x 0.95 thread pair once. Just because that satisfied a mathematical optimum.
-
Looking at the thread crests might be informative. Flat crests would indicate that it is _not_ Whitworth form. Rounded crests, unfortunately, just mean that it _might_ be Whitworth form at that time period.
-
It's probably worth trying to figure out the thread angle. There is a fair chance that a British car of that age would be using 55 degree Whitworth profile threads. Not that measuring a thread angle is particularly trivial.
-
Ben has a Singer too: https://hmvf.co.uk/topic/30968-1914-dennis-lorry/?do=findComment&comment=461079 There is no requirement that any thread conform to any standard. Especially if LH. What you have was probably called out on the drawing just as "1in x 16 LH" and left at that. Possibly with a reference to a matching gauge. I don't see any candidate threads in this list here: http://www.bodgesoc.org/thread_dia_pitch.html
-
You can order 3D printed aluminium online. But it's horribly expensive: https://www.shapeways.com/materials I looked at having an inlet manifold for a motorcycle cast, and it would have been £1200. However, I think that the main part of the cost is the overall volume (and especially height) so the pump parts might be worth investigating. 3D printing a pattern for conventional foundry casting is probably worth considering, though. We have a couple of Aluminium printers at work, but sadly I have not found a way to sneak my parts on to them.
