Dimitris71

I think I owe a response... however, taking the criticism at face value in spite of the obvious troll, I'll shoot for the high road.
 
a) I did not view the videos at the time as Flash had been removed from our PC's.  There are/were vulnerabilities from Flash and we had several attempts to exploit them.   Ok. my bad on that.  Googling part numbers did clear it up. 
 
2) I followed the printed manual to the letter.  alignment isn't mentioned until well after where I aligned it.  The manual instructions are devoid of any meaningful explanation on how to accomplish this.  I had to use Google and research it.
 
As for the manual and your site, it's as simple as 1-2-3...  Set it up, run the cut and engrave parts  which I did, and go.  Note again in the process where I started the alignment it was right after the go and a "let's see what this thing will do". 
 
3)  In searching alignment procedures, I did find out that the Chinese do often install the lenses upside down.  The proper way is curved side up, flat to the bottom.  Mine was curved side down, flat to the top.  Numerous sites (including various optic sites discuss this).
 
4) There is always a learning curve.   If you had read the entire topic you would have seen the journey.
 
5) Why shouldn't I test it with boxwood?  It's very common around this particular hobby as is pear, apple, cherry, and ebony.  For the record, no laser will cut ebony cleanly.. the oil in the wood burns too easily.
 
6) I'm still figuring out how to use it and still learning.  Which applies to any tool.  I've already started the process if "upgrading" and getting it to work.
 
You'll also note, that I do not recommend it  "unless you are tech savvy"... and that the tech is "isn't mature".  I notice that the specs have changed for the next machines coming in... so it's obviously not mature.
 
Also, Chinese quality control sucks, quite frankly.  From the lens being upside down, to several screws stripped (and replaced) to the lens tube being drilled off center and at an angle which I corrected thanks to advice on the internet.  According to sources across the web, the tube isn't a "true" 40W but a "peak 40W" which is a 35W tube.  The true, continous 40W tube is about 100mm longer.
 
Much of the last 30 days has been spent on testing and tweaking.  I've been advised to bag it and send it back and buy a better machine.  But I'm a tad stubborn.  So follow along if you like.. I'll take actual advice instead of a beating.  It's a journey, not a destination.

Thanks for the likes and comments, folks.    Here's the latest...
 
Well... my patience has run out with MM.  There will be no more tools for me bought from them.   If I can't fix any of the ones I've bought from them, it will be replaced by another manufacturer.   As I said previously, I sent an email (posted at the end of this post) on Sunday night.  5 days and no response.   I don't believe I was offensive, angry or mean. But no response, not even a "got your mail and we're looking into this" would have been acceptable. 
 
As for the tool in question... after discussion with the Admiral, she calmed me down and got me rational.  Rather than starting the whole process over, I'm hanging on to it.  I can upgrade when the laser tube dies to a larger power tube.   With what I'm using it for, it'll work.   I had to do mods to the mini-mill to get to work better and sometimes the devil you do know is better than the one you don't.
 
I'm not sure there really is a good solution to a hobby type cutter out there for what we do and under $3000 (US).  Or at least one that won't require a lot time and energy to set it up, climb up and over the learning curve, and get it properly tweaked.   This already has many of the mods that I'd have to source and go through anyway....  220 VAC power unit, for example.  I also know the weaknesses.  So I'll put my time and energy into resolving the issues I have left rather than starting over. 
 
Anyway... I won't recommend this tool to anyone because the tech support isn't there.  But if you do buy one, be forewarned.
 
Anyway, here's the email.... 
 
Hi,
I have a question and some observations on my LaserKnife.   Questions: 1)  Lenses... are there better lenses available or perhaps ones with different focal lengths?  I'll be cutting a variety of wood thicknesses from 1/64" up to possibly 1/4".  I've double and triple checked and cleaned the mirrors and I think the focus could be a bit better.   2) Is there a manual somewhere that has more detail on CorelLaser?  There's settings in there I have no idea what they are for.   3) The cooling water, is there a max temperature rise or a max temperature to watch out for?   Observations, 1)  The manual is a bit vague in areas like parts identification and mirror alignment.   2)  The lense in the cutting head seems to have been installed upside down.  It had the concave side up and the convex side down.  After Googling and reading, I find out that these should be the other way with the concave side down and the convex side up.  I got a finer cut when I did that.   Thank you. 

Since interest has been shown in this tool by many including myself, here goes a hopefully, full review.  I will preface this by saying that this tool is NOT for everyone.   To make it clear:  if you are expecting out-of-box performance from this, stop reading and go do something else.  I fear this is going to be rather long winded....
 
Background
My scroll saw skills leave a lot to be desired and for repetitive items like knees, beams and even cutting small pieces for carving is an issue.  So rather than stand in front of a scroll saw for hours and end up tossing 30-50% of the pieces into the scrap box, I thought about a laser cutter.  The so-called “hobby lasers” seem appealing.  Reasonably low power requirements, low costs, and relatively smaller size appeals to me.
 
Research
The caveats that I read about Laser Cutters and followed in the research are: 
Use a company in the country you are in or will provide support to you. Use a company that has been in business for more than a couple of years. I’ve looked at the imported China Lasers (~$500 US) but have found much wrong with them in the reviews.  Extra costs of dealing with an import agent to get the unit out of customs and shipped to you, generally mediocre quality in the assembly, and then there’s the normal software that comes with the these products.  Also dealing with a seller in China leaves you high and dry without support.   I discovered two being “used” here locally.  One is not working and hasn’t from the time he got it a few months ago.  He’s in the process of replacing the PC board to be compatible with better software and fixing some damaged items like a broken laser tube.  The other, I saw it work, and tried my hand but the software (MoshiDraw) is incredibly bad.  The owner was running it on an XP PC as it wouldn’t run consistently in Win7 even in compatibility mode. 
 
I looked at another higher priced unit (~$4000 US base price with accessories adding up rapidly).  The unit was high quality, made in the US with some Chinese parts including the main board.  It used  LaserDraw software and from what I saw, the performance was adequate.  But as I was unable to sit down and try the woods we use, I can’t give a full report on it.  The owners use basswood and thin veneers for creating dollhouses, model railway buildings, etc.  The output seemed of good quality but again, it was not the woods or sizes we use.   My observation is that this is basically a hobby machine upgraded to being a production type.
 
The one I’m testing is the Micro-Mark brand (~$2000 US).  It comes with a 30 day refund guarantee which, if I determine this isn’t what will work for me, I’ll return it.   I read their claims that this machine is built to their specifications (http://www.micromark.com/html_pages/misc/the-micro-mark-difference.pdf) .  I know that some of us (myself included) have issues with certain practices which I won’t go into.  I will say that I won’t buy ripped off equipment.  This unit doesn’t appear ripped off but an upgraded Chinese unit.
 
I did not consider anything more powerful than 40W.  Maybe I should have, but there's also a cost factor that goes with that.
 
Pre-Order
The unit uses CorelLaser as its cutting software using an industry standard HP Plotter Driver and also Corel Draw.  I downloaded the manual and documentation from MM.  I also ordered a copy of CorelDraw X6 from Amazon.   CorelLaser works only with CorelDraw above version 13 so I bought a shrink wrapped, new-in-the-box program for $150 US.  I would suggest you do your homework on this.  X7, the latest from Corel is a subscription based program.  In other words, you pay every month for it.  I prefer to have a CD in my drawer just in case….
 
I spent a week or so refreshing myself on CorelDraw as the last time I used it was Version 5… yeah… been a few years.
 
Unpacking and Set-Up
I received this is 3 boxes, well packed in foam.   Unpacking is pretty straight forward.  I would suggest that the air pump and water pump NOT be removed from their bubble wrap as there is nothing on these items to indicate what they are.  I wish that MM had put a photo or two in the instruction manual to identify parts.
 
One thing that is needed is a GFI socket.  I’m using  a GFI adapter in case I wish at some future date, to move the cutter to a different place.
 
Set-up is pretty straight forward following the manual.  The hardest part was figuring out the exhaust setup without cutting a hole in the wall of the house.  Also, do NOT secure the exhaust unit to the cutter with tape.  Use #10 X 3/4” self-tapping screws.  There’s  bit a misfit between these parts and the tape will not hold it securely in place.  
 
Here's photos of the unit and all the accessories...

 
Testing Started
I used the factory settings and followed the instructions in the manual for the recommended passes and power.  Not a happy camper using boxwood.  The little nameplate is 1/8” thick boxwood.  Took  9 passes to cut.  Lots of charring.
 

 
I discovered the mirrors were off.  MM instructions are vague in the extreme and need some serious re-writing to be useful.   I Googled and eventually found the information I needed here:  http://dck40.blogspot.com/
Using other web sources, I discovered that the lens in the cutting head was upside down…  WTF!!!! This really irritated me.
 
After  spending a day going back and forth between all three mirrors and adjusting them, and then resetting the focus for the wood, here’s the next round.
 

 
I’m continuing to test and massage things.  This will take time.   I’m able to cut 3/16” boxwwod which requires multiple passes but as yet, not I’ve not tried ¼”  boxwood.
 
Overall Observations.
The learning curve on this machine is a vertical, straight line.  These machines are still in their infancy and not mature.  Documentation is extremely sparse although there are forums out there for laser cutters, getting to the information you need for a particular type or model is a bit overwhelming and I consider myself a knowledgeable Googler.
There is no guidance on power settings or cutting speed to cut various types and thicknesses of wood.  Serious experimentation is required.
 
This machine is finicky in that all mirrors have to be perfectly adjusted to make use of the power and they have to be kept clean.  It is big, and sometimes smelly.  It’s not a production machine and the bucket of cooling water will have to be watched.  Running at “high” power (no definition from anyone on this or on the max water temperature) will shorten the life of the laser bulb.  There is a focus issue and I believe it could cut with a thinner kerf.  I’m trying to talk with MM about this….
 
The nameplate, I couldn’t even begin to cut something that tiny on the scroll saw.  It’s now almost ready for carving.  I do need to tweak the drawing some more to get a bit better spacing.  The anchor stocks I’ve done,  would have taken maybe 30 minutes on the scroll saw.  Including drawing time, this took approximately 1 hour and no wasted/ruined pieces.  However, all 4 are exactly alike and the bolt holes are ready to be cleaned of char and the bolts installed.  No fiddling with the drill press, either.  I have about 8 other parts ready for cutting and will do them as I go.   The kerf size and charring are still an issue.
 
I’ll say it again, it’s not for everyone.  If you have the time and ability to Google and research and then  to fiddle with it and get it running correctly and then to keep it running, it might be ok for you.  The manuals are skimpy at best and a bit of creative Googling will need to be done to help sort things out.  There’s still settings in CorelLaser that I have no idea what they do.  There is an alternative to CorelLaser called LaserCut 5.3.  I haven’t tried it yet and the documentation on-line seems rather sparse from what I’ve seen.
 
Thicknesses of 3/16” and up are tricky to work with.  There’s no tables or inputs from MM on this and the web is all over the place on using these “hobby” cutters.  However, most folks who have reviewed similar machines are using basswood and thin woods.  Doll houses and RR accessories seem to be the major uses along with etching for various things like signs, pendants, etc.   I need to have a conversation with MM on the lens… I think it needs to be higher quality and damn it... there’s no excuse to have it installed upside down. 
 
Lastly, tech support.  I emailed them late on a Sunday night about some issues.  I'm still waiting for answer after 3 days… 
Since we’re talking tech support, it’s worthwhile to note that tech support hours are very limited… Monday through Friday, from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm, EDT.
 
I asked tech support before I ordered about using an extender cable and the answer was a simple: not recommended.  The unit comes with a 9 foot USB cable so I had to seriously rearrange my workshop to get it closer to the computer.   I’m testing a USB powered extender cable so I don’t have cabling running across the floor where it can be stepped on.   Jury is out on this.
 
The short answer for all this is: I wouldn’t recommend it unless you are tech savvy, not just with computers but also can tolerate a large learning curve.  The quality of the cuts could be a lot better.  Overall, it might better that if this tool is something you have to have then spend about double the cash and get a higher powered, non-China built laser cutter with some tech support.  The BossLaser that Chuck uses runs about $5000 and has the higher power to cut thicker woods and is, I believe, also suitable as a production machine.
 
I'll continue to test, adjust, fiddle, and tweak for now... 

HMS TERROR, 1845, UPPER DECK PLAN (AS FITTED)
 
The last technical plan required for HMS Terror is the upper deck, which I have finally completed.
 

Please note: This plan has been updated - please consult my later posts.
                                                                                           
The original 1836 and 1839 deck plans for HMS Terror show the outlines of the ship with planking installed. Therefore, on my plans, I have included the outline of the frames as well as the planking to better facilitate construction. Like the original plans, the position of the solid chock channels accounts for tumblehome. Because the 1839 plans depict HMS Erebus, my plans are based on the 1836 upper deck plans for HMS Terror, but the deck furniture is the same type and style as depicted on the 1839 sheets (see previous posts for rationale). Similar to the profile plans, the position of the deck furniture is based on the 1836 sheets.
 
The most substantial modifications to the plans are at the stern - to accommodate the new position of the rudder and the well for the screw propeller. As a result, the central structure on the stern containing the cistern, color boxes, and water closet was removed from these plans (presumably these were moved to the position of one of the chicken coops). These modifications are also depicted in a contemporary image of the Erebus drawn by Owen Stanley, which shows two large structures on either side of the vessel at the stern.
 
The deck planking on the vessels was unusual and was not depicted in any contemporary plans. Rice (Ross 1847), the shipwright responsible for the refitting, described them in detail:
 

 
A contemporary model of HMS Erebus displays that the upper layer of deck planking angled outwards and forwards from the central planks towards the bulwarks. This style was also used for the upper deck of HMS Investigator, which searched for the Franklin vessels on two voyages between 1848-1853. Investigator’s upper deck plan shows that the planking was placed on an angle about 45 degrees from the centerline. On my plans, the width of the central planks is based on the 1839 midships cross section, but the width of outer planks is not described in any contemporary sources and required more research. Fortunately, an archaeologist at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has recently identified a piece of 3 inch thick “fir” deck planking that she demonstrates is very likely to be from one of the vessels (if so it is the only piece of the ships known to currently exist). The plank is exactly 7 inches wide; therefore this is the dimension I use on my plans. 
 
References:
Ross, Sir James Clark
1847    A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions, During the Years 1839-1843: Volume I. John Murray, London.
 
As always, please see my blog for better images.

HMS Terror, 1845, Inboard profile (as Fitted)
 
My plans from the 1845 inboard profile of HMS Terror incorporate all of the information presented in my previous post (as well as information to be presented in subsequent posts). It represents nearly a year of research, and no doubt contains unknown errors. Despite the fact that my model won’t show any detail between decks (I intend to build a plank on bulkhead model), I felt the inboard profile would be incomplete without these details.
 

Please note: This plan has been updated - please consult my later posts.
 
 
As always, for better images please see my blog!

DESIGN INFERENCES
A significant quantity of historic source material, including original Royal Navy plans, exploration accounts, news reports, and personal letters, sketches, and drawings exist which document the final 1845 configuration of HMS Terror. Creating an accurate plan for the ship requires carefully parsing these data and drawing inferences about the ship’s probable appearance. Below, I outline the rationale behind my reconstruction of major aspects of the Terror’s final 1845 design, as fitted. This is not an exhaustive account, and specific topics such as the locomotive engines, funnel and chimney sizes and positions, propellers, cipher and name, and paint scheme will be discussed in later posts.

Bow/Stern Shape:
As described previously, the 1839 plans depict HMS Erebus, and therefore the 1836 profile must provide the basis for the bow design of the Terror, which is substantially different from the 1813 profile. It is uncertain if the 1836 refit resulted in modification of the cant frames, but Rice (Ross 1847a) appears to indicate that bolsters were added to the exterior of the frames to change the line of the bow.




In my plans, the stern configuration and framing is exactly as depicted in the 1845 annotations (in green ink) of the 1836 profile, which were made to accommodate the auxiliary screw propeller.

Keel, False Keel, and Stem:
The position and configuration of the keel is based on the 1813 inboard profile. The stempost configuration is based in the 1836 inboard profile, but lengthened slightly to accommodate the new position of the bowsprit as shown in the 1845 alterations (in green ink). I should note that a faint pencil modification in the 1813 inboard profile of  HMS Vesuvius also appears to depict the outline of the stempost as drawn in the 1836 Terror profile. The scarph joints on the stempost are based on the 1813 profile, or based on standard designs for the era (e.g. Goodwin 1987:29).

Keelson and Stemson:
The keelson and stemson designs are based on the 1813 profile, but with alterations at the stern to be consistent with the 1845 annotation (in green ink) of the 1836 inboard profile. The bolstering and riders added above the stemson are based on the 1836 inboard profile plans.

Deadwood, Rising Wood, and Knee:
The bow and stern deadwood configurations are not documented in any of the Admiralty plans. Interestingly, the 1813 plans indicate that HMS Terror utilized an older stemson design than the era in which it was built; therefore, the in my plans the deadwood configuration is based on a style in use ca. 1800 (Goodwin 1987:29). The rising wood configuration at the bow is based on the 1813 profile which is partially complete, with information drawn from standard styles utilized in the early 19th century (Goodwin 1987:29).The knee of the Terror was essentially removed (as discussed by Rice [Ross 1847a]), and was replaced with a highly reduced and simplified knee that projected only enough to support the bowsprit. The knee configuration in my plans is based on the 1836 profile, lengthened to support the new position of the bowsprit as depicted in the 1845 annotations on that plan. The joints for the knee (i.e. the configuration of the gripe and bobstay pieces) are based on standard conventions for the period (e.g. Goodwin 1987:37).

Rabbet Line:
Because of the lengthening of the bow and the reduction in the knee, the Terror’s rabbet line must have been highly unusual. The model of HMS Erebus at the National Maritime Museum indicates that the knee (much of which was covered in plating) was essentially flush with the hull planking at the bow. No rabbet is depicted in the 1836 plans of the Terror, so at the bow I based in on the on the thickness of planking as depicted in the 1839 midships section, with the goal of keeping the hull planking below the chock channels (and excluding the wale) flush with the knee. Closer to the keel, the rabbet line recedes until to meets the original rabbet line depicted in the 1813 profile. The rabbet on the keel is based on the line depicted in the 1813 profile. The rabbet at the stern was easily deduced from the 1845 plan of the modified stern, which clearly displays where the hull planking terminates.

Bow Plating:
The position and size of the iron bow plating are based on the 1845 annotation (in green ink) on the 1836 profile. This annotation indicates that iron plating was more extensive than the cross-shaped copper plating used for the 1836 Back Expedition, but did not extend along the waterline like the copper plating utilized for the Antarctic Expedition (depicted in the 1839 profile).

Deck Fittings:
All deck fittings for my plans are based on the 1839 inboard profile of the Terror and Erebus (see a previous post for the discussion of the Royal Navy’s policy of identically outfitting exploration vessels). As discussed previously, the 1839 plans depict the Erebus, so the positioning of the furniture, masts, and other deck fittings are based on the 1836 Terror profile. The position and size of the ship’s boats are based on the 1839 plans (Terror’s boat positions are depicted in red ink), with slight modifications to accommodate the different positions of deck fittings on HMS Terror.

Deck Placement and Wall Partitions:
The 1845 annotations (in green ink) of the 1836 Terror profile appear to contain errors. Specifically, the placement of the decks match the 1845 stern modification plans perfectly, but do not match the position of the decks in the 1836 inboard profile. However, the drawn position of the walls and deck partitions of the 1845 modifications (in green ink) do match the 1836 and 1813 plans precisely, or make logical accommodations for new equipment (e.g. the locomotive). This would suggest that the 1845 annotations based on the stern redesign were simply copied to the plans and not specifically adapted for HMS Terror. Thus, in my plans the position the wall partitions correspond with the 1845 annotations and unmodified 1836 plans, but the position of the decks are depicted as in the 1836 plans. The construction of the upper decks (doubling) corresponds to the 1839 and 1836 inboard profiles.

Bulwarks:
All the plans are inconsistent regarding the height of the Terror’s bulwarks. As described in a previous post, the 1839 Inboard profile is obviously meant to depict the Erebus (the bulwarks would be over ten feet high if placed in this position on the Terror). The 1845 annotations (in green ink) on the 1836 inboard profile likely reflect the proper position at the stern, but do not extend all the way to the bow and appear to be drawn at an inappropriate angle (possibly because it was directly copied from the 1845 stern modifications). To rectify this issue, I traced the cap rail of the 1836 plans and then raised it into position to match the stern location of the cap rail depicted in the 1845 modifications (in green ink). The bulwark lines were then extended at the bow to intersect this new cap rail position. Interestingly, this new position appears to match a pencil line marked on the plan of HMS Vesuvius. This, combined with the annotations to the stempost, strongly suggests that the pencil lines on HMS Vesuvius plans were meant to depict modifications to HMS Terror. This makes some sense; by 1845 the 1836 Terror profile was so densely annotated that that a new sheet may have been required (HMS Vesuvius was identical to HMS Terror and HMS Beelzebub).

Rudder:
The internal construction of the rudder is based on the 1836 profile, but its size, shape, position, and hardware are based on the 1845 stern plans and the corresponding annotations on the 1836 plans (in green ink).

Solid Chock Channels:
The 1836 plans for HMS Terror show a large gap, roughly amidships, in the solid chock channels, and this is confirmed by contemporary paintings by Owen Stanley. As described by Rice (Ross 1847a), in 1839'continuous solid chock channels were constructed on both Erebus and Terror and are shown in the 1839 profiles and deck plans representing both ships. All contemporary 1845 paintings/drawings of the Terror depict solid chock channels surrounding the ship; therefore, a solid chock channel consistent with the 1839 profile is utilized for my plans.

Mast Positions and Rake:
The mast position and rake are based on the 1836 inboard profile (which, as described previously, differs from the 1813 profile). Configurations of the mast steps and their method of attachment are based on the 1813 plans (mizzenmast) and 1836 plans (foremast and mainmast), but the taper of the masts (not depicted in either the 1813 of 1836 plans) is based on the 1839 plans.

Windows:
HMS Terror was originally designed with five stern windows, and drawings by Own Stanley made during Back’s 1836 voyage indicate that each had six panes. However, the central window was removed during the 1845 refit to make room for the new propeller well and the new rudder position, a modification corroborated by the drawings of Stanely, Gore, and others.



Owen Stanley 1845 "Parting company with Terror, 4 June 1845", Courtesy National Library of Australia

An engraving of Franklin’s cabin published in 1845 by the Illustrated London News shows that the windows each had four large panes (probably double-paned) with very robust sills and muntins.



Planks:
As the 1839 midships cross section indicates, the hull planks range in width from 8 inches on most areas of the hull to more than 10 inches (average) at the wales. This is corroborated by the 1845 stern plan which depicts hull planking averaging about 9 inches in width. However, it should be noted that the 1845 stern plan displays that the planks were carefully spiled with no drop planks, so it can be expected that plank widths would vary significantly beyond the average width. In my plans of HMS Terror, all hull planks aim for an average width of ca. 9 inches. The wale planks have a maximum width of ca. 14 inches at the touch, narrowing to ca. 7 inches at the butts. The wale planks are based on the hook and butt design used for bomb vessels as depicted by Goodwin (1989), a planking system which was also commonly used on polar exploration vessels and other sturdy craft (Ware 1991).

References:
Goodwin, Peter
1987 The Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War. Conway Maritime Press, London.

1989 The Bomb Vessel Granado 1742. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis.

Ross, Sir James Clark
1847 A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions, During the Years 1839-1843: Volume I. John Murray, London.

Ware, Chris.
1991 The Bomb Vessel: Shore Bombardment Ships of the Age of Sail. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis.

As always, for better images please see my blog!

Build log part 23
 
 
little update
 
not much this time, but it keeps the wheel turning...
 
Nils
 
 

 
in this lower deck area there are the bulwark doors for the kay gangways
 
 

mended two misalignment portholes with wooden dowels and drilled new...
 
 

 
upper forecasle side-rail, and aft forecastle-deck bulwark
 
 

 
 
 
 

Brian, what temp does the solder you have melt at? Jewelry suppliers sell it in different melting points. Some times referred to as extra easy, easy, hard and extra hard. When you have multiple solder joints sometimes it's easier to use a higher melting point solder first then work down. In theory at lest you don't melt your previous joint that way.
Sam

Yep, that multi-heat solder is on my list of things to look into for my next build.  For this one I was using 'Solder-It' paste.  Not sure what temperature it melts at, but since it's the same on every joint, and the handle is really very close to the yoke on the swivel guns (1/4" or so?), it was a challenge for someone new to working with solder and brass.
 
I ended up attaching 2 alligator clamps between the back end of the gun and the mounting point, and another clamp forward of the mounting point, all to act as heat sinks to give me a little more time to work before the head migrated through the barrel and softened the other joint.  Worked ok as long as I didn't mess up the joint I was working on and tried to keep heat on it too long.

Hello to all, Simon welcome aboard. David-Mike-Slog-Patrick-Don-Brian-Nigel (UpstateNY)-Jeff-Nigel (NMBROOK)-Bob, I do thank you for all the likes and for your visits to my build log.
 
So...work on the shipyard continues..The lamp with the magniffying lens above my head explode...And the first thing I thought,  after the proper language.. Oh darn !!! the ship...  I check the construction and everything it's ok!!
Here are some pictures with the progress of Amerigo... The instructions shows how to make these lines with a pencil..I did not like it  ..so i made this.. Then glue the furnitures on the stern deck, then the radar and then I start to place the stanchions and handrails to the stern's cap rail (i hope that this is a term). Sorry about the quality of photos but as i said above the lamp is out..
 
Kind Regards
Dimitris

gee Frank.........your going like a house a fire!  splendid rigging so far.   apparently........you figured out how to do it    great job! 

Frank, you have done a fantastic job on your rigging.  Yout Alert is looking great.
David B

Wasn't complaining, or certainly not about the final results, was just saying that the soldering was a new challenge for me.  Attaching the yokes, pins, and handles was (in retrospect) a pretty funny 'keystone cops' exercise, as I was constantly getting the already soldered pieces too hot while trying to attach the other pieces.  I probably ended up soldering about 3x more connections than I actually have because of how many times I had to redo things while trying to figure out how to keep the heat from making an existing connection fail.
 
In addition, there were at least two instances of me breaking off handles (in one case of three guns at once) while they were hanging to dry, just because of my clumsiness while working on something completely unrelated.  I should probably learn a lesson from that about where to place drying parts.  

Definitely worth it to replace them if my memory of the britannia castings serves correctly.....those guns look really nice
hamilton

Wow, Wow WOW! Another great build I have been missing, Brian. To bad its so close to the end, my loss. Coils look great, filing this one away.
Sam

And some more photos... (Better quality)
 
Cheers
Dimitris
 
 

Hello shipmates, the work on the shipyard continues....I do thank you all for your likes and comments..Really appreciate it!!!
Here are some photos...
 
Kind Regards
Dimitris

David-Patrick-Captain Slog i do thank you for the likes and very encouragement words!!
The air vents are glued in place... Here they are.
 
Kind Regards
Dimitris

Hello to all, David-Nigel-Lawrence-Patrick , thank you for your so many visits to my build log and also for the likes.
Rik thank you for your nice comments, i appreciate it.
A little progress to my build , the chimney, hatces, crane and the bow rudder housing are glued in place. The masts are in place also (dry fit) for alighnment purposes..
 
Kind regards
Dimitris

Started planking.  Doing the hull before the deck, not sure if there's any reason not to...  I don't have the proper tools so I'm making do with what I have and using the pins that came with the kit to hold the planks to the bulkheads.

Not my first wooden boat build, but first in many many years....
Managed to secure the deck down with no clamping other than the pins provided.
 

You have nothing to complain about your soldering came out great and looks good.
David B

Great work Brian

Thanks Sam & Hamilton.
 
Yes, it was worth it for sure.  When I started I thought the swivel's would be ok, but when I got to that point in the build, I started trying to clean them up, and decided that even with a great deal of effort on my part, they still wouldn't be as nice and crisp looking as the main guns, so I put them aside and ordered the barrels from Chuck after printing out his PDF of his gun barrels and laying the cast guns on the smallest of his swivels and seeing they were almost a perfect match in size.
The real challenge of those swivels for me was learning to solder well enough to piece together the yokes and handles and get them all to stick together.

Looking absolutely wonderful Frank. The furled sails are pristine.
 
I was zooming in on your pics and realized how tall your Alert is. Had to scroll up to see that your build is 1:25 scale, nice. I've been living at 1:64 for months so it's nice to see larger pieces coming together.