shiloh

A while back I asked on this forum if anyone had experience with the Genesis 7.2v rotary tool.
I got one to test out as it was not to expensive and it looked like it could be a very useful addition to my tool collection.
Here is what I found when I got one.
1.  First one I got had a defective switch but the vendor replaced it without any problems and the second one works fine.
2.  Fit and finish are very good, at least as good as any of the other rotary tools on the market.
3.  Has plenty of power for drilling.  I used a 1/16" (1.5mm) drill to test it and it drilled through dry hardwood with no problems.  Only issue is you can't push it, if you start to press to hard it tends to wobble a bit.  Other wise no problems.
4.  Very comfortable to hold.  Fits in my hand well and doesn't cause hand cramps like holding a regular tool does when you need to do a lot of work in one session.
5.  The on/off/speed switch is in an ackward place at the upper rear end of the tool.  You can't position the drill bit and then turn it on.  A trigger switch on the pistol grip would be a big improvement.
6.  The small LED light is useless.  Might be useful if you were working in complete darkness but is otherwise to dim to add any value.  Maybe putting a trigger where the LED is would be a good design change.
7.  A Proxxon 3-jaw chuck fits the spindle and is a worthwhile addition.
 
Over all I would rate this tool a 7 out of 10.  I might rate it higher or lower depending on how dependable it turns out to be over the long haul.  As of now I am very satisfied with it and at $30 delivered from Amazon the price is right.
 
 

I realize that not too many modelers have a milling machine, but for those lucky enough to have one, I would venture to say that it is a very versatile and useful tool for scratch builders as well as those who want a bit more accuracy in cutting material.
I am constantly learning to use mine with new ideas for fixtures and techniques. Perhaps we can share some ideas on this thread.
 
 
A couple years ago there was a thread dealing with this subject and I like to revamp that:
http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/4320-milling-work-and-miniature-jig-making/page-2?hl=+milling%20+machine.
 
Let me show you a few things I have done to and with my machine.
When I first got it, I wanted to learn the basics and made this aluminum slitting fixture. It can be used to make slots or even cut planks. Now I don’t use it too much anymore, because it takes a while to set up and takes away space on the table.
 
 
I have a four inch vise that is very accurate. Using the parallels underneath this piece of pear, I was able to machine this log of gun carriages. After the milling I cut slabs that were only 0.050 inch thick.
 
  
When I decided to make my own gratings, I had to make a decision about square or round holes. After some experimenting I gave up making square holes. Now I find it hard to tell if the grating has square or round holes (when viewed a few inches or more away). My point here is that I placed the grating material on a piece of plywood that was clamped to the table and used the mill’s x-y table movements to accurately drill the holes.

Since then I don’t use the metal clamps that you see in the picture above. I made a number of wooden clamps and blocks that do a better and safer job. 

Here is a set up using those clamps. It was part of my cross section work.

 
More on the next post.

 

Have read that trunions set below the C/L of the bore were found to be very hard on the carrage and was not standard practice for long. Trunnions at C/L would allow the forces to start the carrage movement without the downward thrust of the breach and lifting force at the trunion.that trunions below C/L would cause. Believe that Carronades with trunions were called Cannonades.
jud

Have read that trunions set below the C/L of the bore were found to be very hard on the carrage and was not standard practice for long. Trunnions at C/L would allow the forces to start the carrage movement without the downward thrust of the breach and lifting force at the trunion.that trunions below C/L would cause. Believe that Carronades with trunions were called Cannonades.
jud

All great comments. All details should be considered in light of the overall artistic effect of the model as a whole. Having said that, I know that I have made some very fine and time consuming details that no one will see in the end, but I did them anyway. I think for 2 reasons: first, to push my limits and see if I could do it; and two, because I was curious about how the detail was built. building the details helped me understand how these ships were made, and how the parts functioned.
 
Good thing my overall deadline is to complete the ship just before I pass away....
 
Mark

I would tend to agree with you concerning level of detail and scale - but: unfortunately, unlike in a photographic image, the viewing distance is not fixed. Though in general, one may view a model from, say, half a metre or a metre distance, one may also put the nose over it. If I were to design a model, for instance, as a film prop and it would only be seen from a certain distance, I would indeed put the level of detail on it that is needed to give the 'right' impression. For a show-case model the situation is rather different. Here you need to create the 'right' impression for various viewing distances.
 
For certain details it may be safer to err on the small side ...

Could live with steading and swing lines not used as lift lines just fine.
Thanks popeye2sea.
jud

Mark,
They are in similar positions and also in similar configurations to other rudders shown. I give the seamen of the day enough credit and enough knowledge to be able to rig an un-shipped rudder without needing to bore holes in it. I am just guessing about what those holes were used for, apparently they were not unique to the Constitution. I have yet seen any practical reason for them to be there, handling wise, nor is there any use marks that copper and a lead inside lining would display. It looks like the holes were not in place when the rudder was coopered or the hole would have looked like it was done professionally, it would not be the messy work shown. The way it was repaired using lead, makes me wonder if there was the thought of using those holes for another look someday. Like I said, at this point I would not wager much on my opinion being the correct one. Hope some historical evidence is found explaining the holes, there not for little fishy's to hide in.
Jud

Little fishy's??? Hmm... you might just be on to something since we don't have any real insight.    I would think inspection could be logical... but to be that widespread and in the similar location?  Hmm..  given the way things were done, it's possible...  
 
Where's that damn time machine we were promised back in the 50's-60's and I want the flying car too!!!!!

Found something....Encyclopedia Britannica, a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature, 1902, has this entry..vol. 21 pg. 602 in a very long entry on Seamanship, subsection rudders
 
Before a rudder is taken off to be hung, two long guys are rove through holes for the purpose at the fore part of the heel, one end of each being hitched to the band of the rudder chains, while the other is in readiness to hand into the ship well forward and low down. On the rudder head being suspended by the luff tackles a little higher than its position when shipped, the guys will haul haul it to the exact line with the stern post; it is then lowered onto the gudgeons, the guys unrove by means of the short ends, and the woodlock replaced.
 
So, we have an answer.  The holes are for lines being passed through to ship the rudder.

Jud,
The catch is, these don't seem to be random.  The pictures that have been shown seem to show them in about the same area of the rudder.  A bit of a conundrum methinks....

Those holes are too undersized to lift from, don't believe there were many grade 8 bolts in those days, even if there were, there would be danger of pulling through if the rudder was tilted during lifting. There is no visable evidence of any plates having ever been secured to the rudder using those holes, so the lifting sorces could be spread out. I suspect those holes are nothing more than what remains of the attempt to repair holes cut for core samples. Samples needed to deturming the condition of the rudder itself during a rebuild. Must have been found sound, so not replaced at the time of drilling but the poor patch probably has allowed the rudder to reach to point of  needing replacement today.  Maybe part of the Keel Hauling Rig?
jud

Those holes are too undersized to lift from, don't believe there were many grade 8 bolts in those days, even if there were, there would be danger of pulling through if the rudder was tilted during lifting. There is no visable evidence of any plates having ever been secured to the rudder using those holes, so the lifting sorces could be spread out. I suspect those holes are nothing more than what remains of the attempt to repair holes cut for core samples. Samples needed to deturming the condition of the rudder itself during a rebuild. Must have been found sound, so not replaced at the time of drilling but the poor patch probably has allowed the rudder to reach to point of  needing replacement today.  Maybe part of the Keel Hauling Rig?
jud

Like the idea, if you could include the spar deck beams under that plastic, it would add to the effect you are attempting to obtain. The plastic over the spar deck beams could be used  to support partial sections of the deck beams. Start them all, but cut most back at random intervels leaving only a few full width. Can you soften the lighting in the forward area? Sorry if I sound critical, not my intent, I think you are doing a fanstac job. The intent of my coments is intended to be constructive only. You have demonstraited that my sugestions are well within your abilities, should you find them worthy of consideration.
jud

Like the idea, if you could include the spar deck beams under that plastic, it would add to the effect you are attempting to obtain. The plastic over the spar deck beams could be used  to support partial sections of the deck beams. Start them all, but cut most back at random intervels leaving only a few full width. Can you soften the lighting in the forward area? Sorry if I sound critical, not my intent, I think you are doing a fanstac job. The intent of my coments is intended to be constructive only. You have demonstraited that my sugestions are well within your abilities, should you find them worthy of consideration.
jud

Like the idea, if you could include the spar deck beams under that plastic, it would add to the effect you are attempting to obtain. The plastic over the spar deck beams could be used  to support partial sections of the deck beams. Start them all, but cut most back at random intervels leaving only a few full width. Can you soften the lighting in the forward area? Sorry if I sound critical, not my intent, I think you are doing a fanstac job. The intent of my coments is intended to be constructive only. You have demonstraited that my sugestions are well within your abilities, should you find them worthy of consideration.
jud

It's the camera shiloh. "In person" the lights are not that bright and do mimic the lantern light well. I am still thinking through this clear deck business. It has definitely skewed the overall look and I am not sure I like that yet. Thanks though.
 
Dave

Like the idea, if you could include the spar deck beams under that plastic, it would add to the effect you are attempting to obtain. The plastic over the spar deck beams could be used  to support partial sections of the deck beams. Start them all, but cut most back at random intervels leaving only a few full width. Can you soften the lighting in the forward area? Sorry if I sound critical, not my intent, I think you are doing a fanstac job. The intent of my coments is intended to be constructive only. You have demonstraited that my sugestions are well within your abilities, should you find them worthy of consideration.
jud

If the forces acting on both iron and brass cannons are the same, why would you need different rigging to control those forces. Different carrage types would require rigging adjustments as would changes is size of the piece. Iron or Brass, the rigging doesn't notice. Mark has provided a good source for you to follow up.
jud

This is the picture. Kind of self evident on construction.  The support boards , supporting the building board, are 1/2 inch oak. The slotted boards for tilting purposes are 1/8th inch plywood.  I put a little bar soap on the 
upright guides to help them slide better ( the uprights coming up from the base)  The base is wide and more substantial with weight to be stable.

This is one of those discussions I have really enjoyed, exposing me to some subtlety I had taken for granted. its quite possible I could have built a model with a headsail like America's and still not perceived the issue with getting the sail down.  After all, if its on a model it MUST be a plausible configuration? Turns out: no. Since this discussion took place I have seen a few more images of America with the boom. It makes me wonder now if the most plausible explanation isnt that all the artists misunderstood what they were seeing, or followed the example of a previous drawing or painting that got it wrong and perpetuated the mistake?
This is one of those threads that I think deserves better attention on Model Ship World since I believe it illustrates a great example of a research conundrum that is fun to consider. I hope more people read it and weigh in but I worry it will just vanish into obscurity.

You are right about that, Druxey. This indeed is a French 74 gun ship model. J. Boudriot in his "The 74 gun ship" vol. 1 writes:
 

HI Mike, good comments above.  I use a Delta contractor saw which runs a 10" blade for all my rough work.  By rough I mean cutting frame stock from 3/4" and thicker stock.  Most of my framing stock is 3/16" or 1/4" thick.  You could just buy sheet stock that is already sized to these thicknesses.  
 
When I need to cut thin stock, either from thin sheet stock from suppliers, or from thin stock that I cut, then I switch the blade to an 8" veneer blade or an 8" hollow ground combination blade.  I also use a no clearance blade insert so the small parts stay on top of the machine.  I also use sleds of various combinations (see other posts in this forum}.    
 
If your budget only allows for one machine, then go with a full sized machine.  You could just buy thin stock, and then cut with a Proxxon or similar.  These smaller saws are ideal for the many small items we make for our models. 
 
I did make a small TS which runs a 3" blade so I can saw strips to .025.  I cannot use this small saw for any wood thicker than 1/8" so having both is ideal for my needs,  BTW, my budget does not allow me to buy the Byrnes saw which is why I made my own. 
 
Good luck with your decision.  Hope this helps.               Duff in Middletown, CT

He has a good start, 'even has left a handle to hang on to'. Like every other carver, all he needs to do now, is remove everything that doesn't look like a ladder.
jud

He has a good start, 'even has left a handle to hang on to'. Like every other carver, all he needs to do now, is remove everything that doesn't look like a ladder.
jud