Bob Blarney

I'd use a brass brush.  Stainless steel might be too hard. Ferric chloride will eventually dull the teeth . 
 
But before using a file, try rubbing some chalk on the file.  It might prevent clogging the teeth with metal chips and make it easier to clean with the brass brush.

I'd use a brass brush.  Stainless steel might be too hard. Ferric chloride will eventually dull the teeth . 
 
But before using a file, try rubbing some chalk on the file.  It might prevent clogging the teeth with metal chips and make it easier to clean with the brass brush.

I'd use a brass brush.  Stainless steel might be too hard. Ferric chloride will eventually dull the teeth . 
 
But before using a file, try rubbing some chalk on the file.  It might prevent clogging the teeth with metal chips and make it easier to clean with the brass brush.

Maybe I'll take cruise over to i3Detroit.org.  It's a art/craft/maker community with just about every tool you could think of, and $50/month gets 24/7 access to it all.  But the real value is in the people who participate - every kind of artists, machinists, engineers, designers, you name it.  Detroit is still a technological powerhouse

great work on the knives.  
 
I know what you mean about lathework and turning pens.  I made one once to avoid watching the news when I got home from work.  I took it work and showed someone, and soon people were calling me to turn pens.  Well, it got a little embarrassing because I wasn't there to sell pens, but when someone offers $50-150 for an hour or two of relaxing work then why not?  It also paid for some shop improvements.

Your lathe is a versatile tool.  Here I'm polishing and washing 50 small parts.    The pill vial is held in the pen-blank jaws, with a dead-center rod to give it a small offset for tumbling the parts.  My lathe is powered by a variable speed DC motor that I scavenged from a bedroom clothes rack (aka an exercise treadmill).  It gives speed from ~20-4000 RPM with a simple modification of the controller board, and is reversible too (use a chuck that locks on the spindle!)

Washer.mp4

Yep, a lot of people sell pens now.  But it was more than a fad - many people made the rent when times were hard after the Mortgage Meltdown that destroyed the economy in late 2007.  But for me, I never kept an inventory - that was too expensive.  It was about working with someone person-to-person in an artist/craftsman way to make a pen that they really liked and used.  It was a matter of engaging them in the process, and I've run into people who wave their pens at me that were turned years ago.  It was fun, and sometimes I still do it.

All that said, I'd say that learning one craft always aids in learning another.  The experience of handling tools with one's hands sharpens the imagination.

Hello, I hope you might find this useful.  
 
I really prefer to use a blade on wood instead of sanding.  It's quicker, gives a better surface, and doesn't produce airborne dust or noise.  But this necessitates keeping the irons and chisels sharp.  Here's a link about how I do it, using a shopmade wooden plane, a granite floor tile and abrasive autobody papers (100-2000 grit), and/or an optional diamond stone.  I neglected to discuss stropping on a leather-covered board charged with abrasive compound.
 
https://www.mimf.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6105
 
 

Bearing in mind that my experience is with full-size tools rather than a modelmaker's saw, I think I may have a few comments that might be useful. 
 
Jaager's comments about the number of teeth engaged in the stock is mostly correct, with some exceptions for a particular wood species.  Generally 2-4 teeth must be engaged in cutting, with an adequate set and gullet depth, and the correct feed speed to eject saw dust.
 
While the wood used in modelmaking is typically quite clear and straight-grained, there may still be internal stresses in the wood that are relieved during ripping, and this may cause the wood to curl and close the kerf behind the blade.  For saws with full-length fences (esp common in the USA), skewing the fence in some manner to relieve binding is considered a poor practice, and generally a splitter should always be used.  There are also saws which have half-length fences that relieve binding towards the fence (as KeithAug's ruler functions (see #9) , but they do not prevent the kerf from closing behind the blade and so again a splitter should be used.  However, at the dimensions typically used in modelmaking, a dangerous kickback is unlikely and the worst that usually happens is a ruined piece of wood.
 
All that said, when ripping thin slices with full-sized saws, e.g. cutting 1/8" wide strips from a 4" wide board, the fence should never be fixed at 1/8" from the blade and then the thin slices ripped from the wide stock board.  If done that way, then the thin slice may become trapped, grabbed by the blade and flung back as a spear at the operator.  A much safer practice is to place a stop block on the other side of the blade, at 1/8" from the blade.  Then the stock is placed against the fence, and the fence is adjusted so as to abut the stock against the stop block.  Then a slice is ripped away, and then the fence is readjusted for each successive cut, again abutting the wide stock against the stop block. 
 
Finally, sacrificial push sticks and blocks are always a good idea.  And for many sawing operations at modelmakers' scale, a blunt pencil with a soft eraser makes a good push stick.
 
1, the overall setup - note the Wixey DRO, which I find is a great convenience
2. stop block set at ~1/8"
3.  my adjustable sled for precision cuts at many angles, up to 20" length.
 

That will work.  Another alternative is a smartphone camera mounted on a support.  It can provide variable magnification, too.

That will work.  Another alternative is a smartphone camera mounted on a support.  It can provide variable magnification, too.

That will work.  Another alternative is a smartphone camera mounted on a support.  It can provide variable magnification, too.

About Vices?  What you need to know:
Vises grip firmly for you.  Vices grip you firmly. 
Just sayin'
 

Hmm, I've sometimes wondered if a (miniature?) chevalet would be useful for modeling:
 
 

Here's a chart of blade thicknesses- the kerf will usually be a little bit wider than the blade.
 
https://www.gesswein.com/p-12889-super-pike-swiss-saw-blades-gross.aspx
 
Here's a vendor of blades in the US (Michigan)
 
http://www.crhill.com/pikesawblades.aspx

Ah, it seems to me that there is a fundamental problem with these scrapers.  While they may be quite sharp when they come from manufacturer, I don't see a practical way to resharpen them to a keen edge.
 
>The cutting action of a scraper is achieved by a tiny burr on the edge of the steel<, and over time the burr is abraded away by the scraping action on the wood. 
 
A cabinetmaker uses scrapers of relatively simple shapes - a straight edge or a broad curve.  The process of sharpening these scrapers is to file the edge flat (i.e. 90d to the broad planar surface of the scraper), and then draw a burr on the filed edge with a hard steel burnisher (e.g. a screwdriver shaft or router bit) at about a 5-15d angle.  

Resawing on a table saw has some disadvantages - it wastes (expensive) wood, and there are instances where it could be dangerous. 
 
I've resawn granadillo (a very hard rosewood)  1"Th x 11"W  into   3/32" Th  x 11" W veneer for guitar parts, using a riser block on my old 14" Delta Milwaukee with a 3/8" x 105"  Lenox Tri-Master blade, and a high fence.   But here's one technique for resawing using both a table saw and a bandsaw:
 
1. On the table saw, cut a 3/8" deep groove on the edges of the board
2. On the bandsaw, place a wooden table on top,  drive a 6p or 8p nail just before the blade and clip it about 1/4"  high.  Now you can use the clipped nail to register the edge of the board and  guide it through the bandsaw.
 
There are also 'point' fences, where a board is clamped with a sharp corner just beside the teeth of the bandsaw blade.  That way the board can be skewed to cut thin slices.  I don't find that to be good method. 

But here's the safest way, which I'd do from now on: 

https://youtu.be/VNbq4WuJmRk
 

Given that I have not seen or used this Proxxon lathe, I am unimpressed and think it is a waste of money.  i would never buyone.  I have a Sherline 4000 for finer work (relatively expensive accessories), and a Delta 46-250 midi-lathe for woodwork.
 
Try AnthonyUK's advice first about handwork, or go look for a secondhand cast iron and machined steel midi-lathe, or pen-turner's lathe,  such as made by Jet, Delta, Grizzly, Penn State or even a chinese Harbor Freight lathe.  in the long run, you should consider not only the cost of the lathe, but also the accessories such as a steadyrest, chucks, live and deadcenters, toolrests, chisels, etc.   
 
just my opinion. 
 
if you want to see some delicate lathe work, then look up Cindy Drozda.

This might be a useful idea for those who have a vibrating pad sander. It could handle larger pieces:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fdQDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=strip sander&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q=strip sander&f=false 

Well done.  

Here's a URL link to one that I built for thicknessing 8" x 20" wood stock for guitar tops and sides down to 2.0 to 3.0 mm thick.  The adjustment mechanism isn't quite so complex.  One possible advantage of my design is that the stock can be tapered across its width by adjusting the alignment of the feed ramp.
 
If you can't access the article at the Musical Instrument Makers Forum, please let me know and I'll post a description.

http://www.mimf.com/old-lib/hammond_sander_lathe.htm
 
 
And here is another similar idea that I found a year or two ago,  published in Popular Mechanics, July 1958, p 190.  A dust collection apparatus is really essential and would not be difficult to adapt to this design.  The mechanical parts are available at McMaster.com
 
https://books.google.com/books?id=KN8DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA191&dq=drum thickness sander intitle%3APopular intitle%3AMechanics&pg=PA191#v=onepage&q=drum thickness sander intitle%3APopular intitle%3AMechanics&f=true

Well done.  

Here's a URL link to one that I built for thicknessing 8" x 20" wood stock for guitar tops and sides down to 2.0 to 3.0 mm thick.  The adjustment mechanism isn't quite so complex.  One possible advantage of my design is that the stock can be tapered across its width by adjusting the alignment of the feed ramp.
 
If you can't access the article at the Musical Instrument Makers Forum, please let me know and I'll post a description.

http://www.mimf.com/old-lib/hammond_sander_lathe.htm
 
 
And here is another similar idea that I found a year or two ago,  published in Popular Mechanics, July 1958, p 190.  A dust collection apparatus is really essential and would not be difficult to adapt to this design.  The mechanical parts are available at McMaster.com
 
https://books.google.com/books?id=KN8DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA191&dq=drum thickness sander intitle%3APopular intitle%3AMechanics&pg=PA191#v=onepage&q=drum thickness sander intitle%3APopular intitle%3AMechanics&f=true

Well done.  

Here's a URL link to one that I built for thicknessing 8" x 20" wood stock for guitar tops and sides down to 2.0 to 3.0 mm thick.  The adjustment mechanism isn't quite so complex.  One possible advantage of my design is that the stock can be tapered across its width by adjusting the alignment of the feed ramp.
 
If you can't access the article at the Musical Instrument Makers Forum, please let me know and I'll post a description.

http://www.mimf.com/old-lib/hammond_sander_lathe.htm
 
 
And here is another similar idea that I found a year or two ago,  published in Popular Mechanics, July 1958, p 190.  A dust collection apparatus is really essential and would not be difficult to adapt to this design.  The mechanical parts are available at McMaster.com
 
https://books.google.com/books?id=KN8DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA191&dq=drum thickness sander intitle%3APopular intitle%3AMechanics&pg=PA191#v=onepage&q=drum thickness sander intitle%3APopular intitle%3AMechanics&f=true

As a first time build, I'd advise using plain old Elmer's GlueAll.  Many many models have been built with it, and it's no nearly as difficult to reverse it as compared to a yellow PVA glue.  There may other parts in the model where a different glue might be better (such a cyanoacrylate, i.e. superglue), but start with Elmers.
 
Another point about using glue for building models.  In many places, it would be good to squeeze a dot of glue on a notecard and apply it to the part with a plastic toothpick.  This is especially so with superglues.   A 1cc or 3cc syringe with a blunt needle can be very useful too, about 18 to 20ga needles, and sometimes a 16ga or a 22ga depending on the viscosity of the glue.

As a first time build, I'd advise using plain old Elmer's GlueAll.  Many many models have been built with it, and it's no nearly as difficult to reverse it as compared to a yellow PVA glue.  There may other parts in the model where a different glue might be better (such a cyanoacrylate, i.e. superglue), but start with Elmers.
 
Another point about using glue for building models.  In many places, it would be good to squeeze a dot of glue on a notecard and apply it to the part with a plastic toothpick.  This is especially so with superglues.   A 1cc or 3cc syringe with a blunt needle can be very useful too, about 18 to 20ga needles, and sometimes a 16ga or a 22ga depending on the viscosity of the glue.

As a first time build, I'd advise using plain old Elmer's GlueAll.  Many many models have been built with it, and it's no nearly as difficult to reverse it as compared to a yellow PVA glue.  There may other parts in the model where a different glue might be better (such a cyanoacrylate, i.e. superglue), but start with Elmers.
 
Another point about using glue for building models.  In many places, it would be good to squeeze a dot of glue on a notecard and apply it to the part with a plastic toothpick.  This is especially so with superglues.   A 1cc or 3cc syringe with a blunt needle can be very useful too, about 18 to 20ga needles, and sometimes a 16ga or a 22ga depending on the viscosity of the glue.