Thistle17

I will be supplying photos soon. My only timidity is related to the actual device, not the mounting methodology. I am still evaluating the performance. I have no affiliation with the IGaging folk or anyone else that resells the product. I just want to be sure it is worth the trip. I hope you understand. I went through 3 iterations of the mounting and ended back where the original MSW member started with his mounting system. It is just a bit more refined I believe. However his approach is the right way to go. In regard to the IGaging device I am thinking I will order a newer version and see if I find the utility and advertised performance works to my satisfaction. Of particular note in the product features it appears that they have slightly changed the functionality by what I can discern from the web site images. Mark the repeatability is one area I am addressing. At first blush I am not too impressed with mine. It does not have an ABS(olute) function on my vintage. It has a Preset and INC(rement) function. The newer ones have the ABS function. Strangely "sometimes" my unit holds the measurement I dialed in when power is turned off and then on. It doesn't seem to hold the same (actual) displacement dimension when I move the fence however. These are the kind of performance anomalies I am addressing. Joe

I finally have gotten around to outfitting my Byrnes saw with a DRO as a previous member herein had shared. I employed a IGaging 35-712 P of a vintage around 2016. I glean it is an older model as it's accuracy is advertised as .004" vs todays .0015". I have spent a good deal of time learning how these devices work and empirically how they perform. I thought it would be a good "community" repository of knowledge to help others interested in digitizing non DRO machines. There are relatively inexpensive units and of course there are more expensive ones as well. The IGaging company offers product at the lower end in two tiers; aluminum substrate versions and the more expensive stainless steel variety. The price differential is just about 2X between units. The Igaging units are not proprietary as other company's offer nearly look alike product. Also there is an emergence of Bluetooth connectivity and "apps" for some more intelligent display and interactive devices. One has to graduate to the more expensive tier to get at the data output. Many people have used the units on midi mills and the like as they offer an X/Y/Z package. The saw of course only requires one for fence displacement. Using the information located on Yuri's Toys web site one can get a decent understanding of the characteristics (and of course the vulnerabilities) of the devices. Here in brief form is what I have learned so far applying the device to the saw: 1. The accuracy is pretty true to the advertised number i.e. .004 2. Repeatability is somewhat tenuous. 3. The unit functions better when the 6 foot cable is not coiled up. I suspect crosstalk. 4. It is recommended that the USB cable either be cut down or shielded for operation in "noisy' environments. 5. I find that the displacement function i.e. measuring from the saw blade to right or left is all I presently find useful. 6. The caveat is that it must be zeroed every time the fence is moved. So with this beginning can we continue to create a repository of info for application of these devices and log them here? I think it would be of great value to many. Joe

My new blades arrived and I installed a like for like Thurston I-292 and it works great! So indeed it was a dull blade. And Jim I did not realize they were hollow ground. I should have checked it. Thank you. Joe

Ac input 120 -240 VAC, 50/60Hz, 100MA. DC output 9V, 305ma. female micro plug. Joe

I was speaking with Jim about this very problem just a few days ago i.e. the width deviation. We concluded with the amount of ripping I had previously done my .030 blade had dulled on the fence side. I could observe a slight deflection away from the fence when ripping even 3/64" boxwood and an attendant dragging or binding. It doesn't take much to have this show up even with a very slow feed and the blade just above the work. Oddly, or maybe not so, cross cuts seem to work with out binding. Here the cut is on the outboard side of the blade. I have ordered new blades. Remember these slitting blades have very little, if any, tooth offset and are not hollow ground so there is a side bearing component of load to these blades. Go to the Thurston web site to learn more about these blades. While waiting I have resorted to partial ripping of the stock i.e. running it through without the blade cutting through the surface, turning it over and running it through again. Not preferred but somewhat of a workaround. Joe

Ah that passion it does keep the heart beating and blood flowing Bob. I will be following. Joe

Now what???? Not only do you execute at a very professional level your productivity is not to be ignored. You profess "slow and steady" so HOW DO YOU DO IT?? This too is a trophy work Rusty! Joe

Well Jim Byrnes was kind enough to return my call and after relaying my tale of woe concluded that the likely possibility is that one side of the blade has dulled. So I will order more blades. I will reorder the .03 and the .04 to gauge their effectiveness. Joe

Mark I had been lifting the blade to just above the thickness of the wood. It is a practice I have long used in the "big boy" shop. I do this for safety and for reduction of the surface area the stock is rubbing against the blade I relooked at the tooth rake of the blade in question this am and it is somewhat off, but close to 90 degrees making me think the tooth is acting more as a "chopper" than a slicer. Extending this thought as the blade cuts (or chops) and heats it deforms away from the stock somewhat causing the stock to widen. This continues until the blade can deform no more as it is stopped by the zero clearance insert. Am I over analyzing this or what? And thank you for reminding of this reference. Joe

Thanks for your input everyone. As I am driven to get on with my Cheerful I am moving in a few directions while waiting for replies. Even though the stock is only 3/64 box I lowered the blade below a cut through level. Then raised the blade to cut through on the next pass. It ripped the stock without resistance and uniformly. It may be the blade is starting to dull and heating up and flexing (at this point I half believe that). I did check the fence parallelism and the out feed relief of the fence. As a matter of practice I put slight pressure on the fence at that point when tightening it down. It may also be the rake angle of the saw teeth, it occurs to me as I write this so I will experiment with blade height a bit more. I have a note out to Jim Byrnes to see what he thinks but will follow up and purchase some thicker blades for ripping. There is an answer to this problem so I will keep at it until solved. Joe

May I hop onto this thread and by way of asking a question maybe back into a tip or a word to the wise. I decided to "calibrate" my Byrnes table saw that is now about 2 years old. Before I go any farther it is hands down a great tool. Here is what I am puzzled by. For discussion sake I need to rip 3/16" planks out of 3/64th stock. I am using a zero clearance saw plate and a 90 tooth Thurston blade from Byrnes. I set up the saw using a 3/16 (.1875) brass spacer bar that is made for just this purpose. If you measure via a caliper it is 0.1875 as it should be. I set the fence up as recommended (tightening the inboard lock down, then the outboard). The saw blade is set up about 3/16" from the table top to reduce rub. I rip a plank. If I measure it with the same calipers it measures 0.1875 at the lead part of the cut but it grows in width almost 0.090 by the end of the rip. I notice it starts to bind about 1/10 of the way into the rip. I also observe that the blade is moving outward away from the stock but not so much that it is hitting the insert kerf. I have a theory but would appreciate hearing from the august body out there. Joe

Slowly but surely we are getting there. Today I applied the Rage filler shown in the accompanying picture after machine fairing the Golden Edge (greenish) compound previously applied. The Rage product (light blue compound) is also a filler but it has properties that make it much easier to use. It is a less viscous compound and it has a slightly longer open time for working. When it comes time to sand it is much easier to sand and that alone makes it preferable. Here is the port side almost ready for final sanding. It will then be primed and glazed and if need be primed again.

Back to getting the hull ready for painting. I was at the museum today and experimented with the 3M Golden Edge FILLER. Therein is the operative word. It is no easier to apply than the 3M Platinum Plus Glaze. There is the other key word. It's open time is about 3 to 4 minutes as described in the worksheet. It dries rock hard and can be applied up to 1/4 inch thick. It is tough to hand sand but does give a decent substrate finish for a surface glazing. I had to resort to drywall sanding sheets of 80 grit to bring down the surface as it clogs regular sand paper quickly. As a surface re-enforcement it is quite good for a display model it is overkill in my estimation. We will revert back to the 3M Platinum Plus Glaze prior to finish painting.

Tom: That is very good news indeed. We were quite puzzled when we tried to get the drawings the first time around that it was so difficult. Even when one of our group who is retired ex-Navy in the ship building end of things tried. I am going to relay to him your findings/observations. he is away in sunny Florida right now so it may take a bit of back and forth exchanges. You are kind to offer help. Also the Navy gave us the drawings there was no charge. Joe

Just checking back in to give some more feedback on my 5400 DRO milling machine from Sherline. It is all good news and made so by the use of the DRO feature of this machine. I am not a trained machinist but can get by and have for quite a number of years. Now that I have the digital readout capability my work products have improved. This is so evident when parts replication is required. I do find that my blank mounting is somewhat of a challenge and I need to work on that. I think it can be improved with the Sherline's line of tooling plates. I plan to order one shortly. Right now they are on sale. Joe

Thanks GrandpaPhil I knew someone had an answer out there. I did try once more at the Kindig It web site and this time they have an auto response of who to reach for subject specifics. That wasn't an access for me before. I am off and running to see if that will fit the bill! Thank you very much. And here is the PDF for usage. One can use it on wood and it has a reasonable open time before it starts to setup. http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/649535O/3m-golden-extra-filler-01127-01177-01277-01317.pdf Joe

Mark I have contacted them twice through there web site Kindig It Design but have yet to hear from them. In looking more completely on line my use of the term "conformal coating" may have been inappropriate. That comes from my days working with electronic circuit boards which were coated to reduce the effects of environmental conditions. That product material was never meant to be sanded once applied and if the board was repaired it had to be patch coated again. If I do not hear from them in the next 2 weeks we will revert to the hobby mesh fiber cloth and we will glass it. I just hate working with it because of VOCs. Joe

Many thanks Mark I will give thatprogram credits a try. Joe

And all this time I have been thinking I am inept! I find comfort in the responses and of course guidance. On Cheerful there is to be a 1/64 rebate around all gun ports. What I have been doing, before all these very good ideas, was taking my Lee Valley miniature chisel (the 1/8 one) and honing it to near scalpel sharpness. This works most effectively on the vertical rebates before I go any further. Then I gently carve away, bevel side up, the plank ends to the proper relief. For the sills and lintels I do use the chisel, bevel side down to clean up the corners. A very, very sharp chisel will cut the end grain very cleanly (best results can be had with boxwood). Joe

We are nearing the point where we have to decide on the conformal coating for the hull. It is taking a good deal more attention to fair the hull than we expected. We are still betwixt and between glassing the hull and using some other conformal coating such as they use on "Bitchin Rides" on the Motor Trend Channel for cars. I have sent them an e-mail but they have not responded. The material appears to have a reasonable open time, is yellow in color, and can be leveled with what appears to be large screed boards. It is not Nitro Stan nor is it any of the 2 part levelers that are termed "Easy Sand". These cannot be used over large ares as they set up way too fast. The glassing approach we would fall back on is likely to be the modelers fine mesh cloth with the attendant 2 part gel/hardener. Does any body know the product i.e. the yellow compound used in auto body fairing? I get blank stares at the auto body supply houses. Joe

You are gifted Doris there is no question! With that gift you create masterpieces. I do hope you have heirs (s) for the preservation and longevity of your treasures. Joe

Ship board damage control now finds the bulkheads sanded fair at the keel rabbet and the rabbet strip and keel have been replaced. Time to move on, by attending to the transom frames. These are very delicate members and have to be added somewhat "in the air" as they are attached, one by one to the former sides w/o much structural support. I will describe what I did but in hindsight I will also suggest an assembly method that might be a bit easier. The pictures in Chapter 3 related to transom member assembly aren't too clear but they suffice. Once again I was on a roll with the bulkhead supports I had used for most of the other bulkheads and placed them (the vertical ones) on the aft end of #22. They should have gone on the inside of that bulkhead. This is going to give me a bit of the problem when I have to add the fillers where the stern terminates. However they did give a nice landing area for the inside stern frames that were to be added. I then added the 2 inner most stern members per directions (separated by 1/8 inch spacers along the former) to yield a 7/16" spacing. I liked the support they gave enough to add horizontal members port and starboard to support the remaining stern members. These are separated by 7/16" spacers per directions. All spacers and frame members are glued one to the other across the stern. These frames should be flush with the top of bulkhead #22. I am left with the problem of still having to shape the stern with fillers as one does the bow. This I perceive will be a bit cumbersome. In hindsight I should have re-enforced the bulkhead from the inside as I said and executed the following: On the aft side I would have placed a 3/8" X 1/2" strip across the bulkhead port and starboard side of the bulkhead and then filled in the balance of the stern area with balsa filler. Also for the more fastidious modeler I would be tempted to extend the horizontal legs of each transom frame member such that they can extend forward of #22 bulkhead (slotting this bulkhead to accept the thicker base leg of the frames) and placing those 3/8" X 1/2" horizontal strips on bth sides of the bulkhead (i.e. forward and aft). Joe

Jim I did not use the de-bonder as the keel was free about 2/3 of the way to the stern and there was tape wrapping the keel. It just snapped. I will use yellow glue and continue attaching it with the little blocks in the picture. By the way those blocks really make the bulkheads quite rigid. Joe

This is a good news, bad news accounting. The Strong museum demo/display was this past weekend. I used Essex for my demonstration for how a kit might begin and managed to assemble about 16 of the bulkheads before the end of the 2 day session. Today I installed the bulkheads 17 through 20. At this point one has to decide if the "strong back" stiffeners are to be added as they pass through bulkheads 3 through 20. They then are glued to the "strong back" and hopefully some of the bulkheads. It turns out this is a annoying task.. I say that because of slight irregularities in the slot of each bulkhead. Theoretically they all should line up and the stiffener just slides through, in this case from the stern, one to a side. If one uses the top of the strong back as the datum slight irregularities occur in the alignment of the slot from bulkhead to bulkhead. As it turned out I had to remove about 40 thousands from the stiffeners. and chamfer the edges to avoid any glue obstructions that may have occurred when the bulkheads were glued in place. Stupidly I used CA to attempt to fasten the stiffeners to the strong back. I used the very thin CA and sure enough some trickled down onto my assembly jig gluing the keel to it!!!!! It took a bit of doing but I was able to extract the hull from the jig but in so doing the keel and most of the rabbet strip stayed behind. After a few moments of self chastisement I discovered it was somewhat of a blessing in disguise. I will have to make a new keel. When using the top of the strong back as a datum and with each bulkhead set flush with it I observed that about 7 of the bulkheads protruded into the rabbet area. At this point I realized it was going to be a lot easier to sand the bulkheads at this point so there was no rabbet overlap prior to the keel repair! That's my good news. Sort of! Joe Note bulhead protrusion at rule 15 3/4 and 16 1/4.

Where does this passion and drive come from? It seems every time I check in you have taken another leap forward with great results. Simply amazing! Joe