wefalck

And UV-curing acrylics ...

The beauty department has a lot of interesting stuff and typically cheaper than the modellers' stuff - it's a mass market. These blocks are also sold for woodworkers etc. Got some in 150 grit quite a while ago - ebay etc. is your friend. Unless yours are soft, I would rather call them foam sanding blocks. Mine are rather hard and the shape is stable, allowing to sand flat surfaces.

I can see that the back edge of the sanding disc is relieved, but I don't understand what it is used for. Perhaps you can hold a workpiece against the disc to illustrate the purpose ? Of course, superbly engineered, as always !

You won't need a rope-walk as such, but of course, you can do it on it. Unlike threads, each wire does not need to be twisted in itself, just the wires need to twisted together. So two hooks are sufficient, one of them spinning. Some years ago I constructed a rope-walk (according to the proposal of Frölich, with two spinning heads) from an old bakelite optical bench that I inherited from my father. It does not allow to adjust the tension steadily, so it turned out not to be so suitable for making twisted wire. I think I will now use the lathe and devise something to exert a steady pull on the hand-lever tailtstock. I only need short lengths of wire-rope, so it should be ok. Just ordered some of the 0.007 mm silver wire as I will need soon some light wire rope in 1:160 to stay the funnel and the signal mast on my current project. Should arrive here sometime in December. Let's see how that goes.

These phone repair guys have lots of interesting stuff. There is also silver wire at 0.007 mm diameter. When trying to make my own 'wire rope', I found it quite difficult to twist up more than two wires, because it is difficult to to get equal tension on all the strands and when you pull to tension them, these thin wires easily snap.

I don't know about the US, but over here in Europe powering boats began with semi-diesel IC engines on the commercial side, while amateurs put petrol engines into boats already at the turn of the century. The semi-diesels were hefty chunks of cast iron. The Danish were pioneers at that, followed quickly by the Dutch and the Germans. These semi-diesels would eat anything from rancid butter (there was often a fuel pre-heater on top of the cylinder-head to reduce its viscosity) to petrol. They had a glow-bulb (similar to aircraft model IC engines) that had to be heated with a blow-torch before the engine could be started. Similar engines were used as agricultural power-plants and tractors. They ran at relatively low speed (perhaps as low as 100 rpm empty), but had a high torque - torque is also a function of cylinder displacement and mass inertia in the system. Even at that low speed you would probably need at least a 1:20 to 1:40 ratio in the worm-drive.

Display Case The project has progressed to a point, where soon major parts will be painted and then will have to be protected from dust during the further building process. Hence, I constructed a Plexiglas display case. From another project some 40 years ago I had lots of 2 mm sheets of Plexiglas left over that I now put to good use. Ideally, the sheets would be cut to size on a table saw, but I do not have one big enough. However, Plexiglas up to 3 mm thick can be scored and then snapped. A procedure recommended by the manufacturer, if you don’t have a suitable saw. I put a sharp-edged angle-iron along the edge of the work-bench, laid the Plexiglas with the marked-out cutting line exactly over the edge and a heavy steel-ruler exactly (minus half of the thickness of the cutter) over the line and clamped the assembly firmly down. The sheet is then scored a few times with a box cutter, followed by a cutter with a hooked blade until a groove 0.5 to 1 mm deep is made. Finally, you grab firmly with both hands (the faint-hearted may use leather gloves) the part sticking out, take a deep breath and with one decided jerk you break it off. The result is a clean, straight cut with only a little kerf that needs little cleaning up. Arrangement for snapping Plexiglas sheet in a similar case In theory, the kerf is desirable. When professional make such Plexiglas cases, they mill on such a kerf to provide room for the cement. The kerf should face inward. The cement used was Acrifix 192, one of the proprietary cements for real Plexiglas. It is essentially, liquid, uncured Plexiglas and will have the same refractive index once cured so that joints are invisible, when executed professionally. I know the theory (as I have a full version of the manufacturer’s handbook), but my practice is far from perfect. I found that the very old Acrifix 192 I was using has a very short open time and curing begins as soon as a light quantum hits it. Unlike for other formulations, curing is set off by visible light and not only by UV light. It is also very runny and it is easy to smear it over places, where you don’t want it to go, basically fusing into any Plexiglas it hits. So I used it rather sparingly to be on the safe side. The less than perfect joints don’t matter too much, as the corners will be covered, according to my house-style, in L-shaped brass edges. Still have to mail-order them in Germany, as I have not found a affordable source yet for milled (not drawn !) L-shaped brass here in France. The edges will also add to the strenght of the assembly. There will be also wooden, polished plinth. The base is a piece of 16 mm fibre-board that I happened to have lying around. The Plexiglas case will be secured to it with two screws eventually. The case will be completed at a later stage, as for the moment only its function as dust-cover is important. Plexiglas case in its raw state To be continued ...

Would have loved to have one, when I was a boy

No matter how comprehensive your thoughts and planning were, you will always find out that something doesn't work in reality. So I would always expect to be differences between 'as designed' and 'as built', although modern 3D-modelling, where you not only can model static features, but can model the functionality can eliminate some of these problems. Not sure this is being used by this kind of naval architects, but in designing industrial facilities, they can model much of the functionalities, before the first concrete is poured or the first metal cut.

So you are using them for both, workholding on the machines, e.g. milling machines, as working by hand ?

Interesting power transmission. I have not seen a worm-wheel drive for a paddle-wheel before. I gather it makes sense, when you have a rather fast IC engine and adds torque at low speed for a small engine.

As they say: what is underneath nobody cares about I gather this is the first layer to give the shape ? For a second layer in areas that will not be coppered a more prototype style of planking might be advisable. Also in cardboard modelling it makes sense to fill the space betwen bulkhead to ease fairing and planking. It is advisable to use a material somewhat softer than that used for the bulkhead, so that the sanding does not tough them. Personally, I would have used (because I have it) a foam called Rohacell, which is essentially foamed Plexiglas. There are other types of hard foames on the market that could be used. This prevents the planks from being pushed in or sagging. You will have a very stiff base for planking that way.

Well engineered parts, as usual and certainly a lot more precise than the cheap engraver's clamps they flog onto modellers these days. For what kind of work do you envisage to use them ? I am asking this, because I have one of those cheapo ones, but have not found yet a real use for them in my workshop practice (I gather for carving/engraving flat and irregular objects they would come handy, but I have no need for that).

Thanks for the the link to the 1-2-3 blocks. I wasn't aware, that they come in such small sizes and metric and at a quite reasonable price. Have to get some of those ...

These kinds of engineering squares or V-blocks come in various nominal (imperial) sizes, e.g. 1", 2", 3" inch edge length, and normally in matching pairs (meaning two of them have been ground together in a jig). The price depends on the 'class', i.e. the guaranteed flatness and parallelism. For our normal workshop needs the lowest class will do. I got two sets, that were made in India, I believe. I wouldn't use slip gauges for this kind of setting up task, as their functioning depends on the perfection of the surface and on light film of grease that should not be removed to prevent corrosion. I have been using round or square lathe tools for the purpose. Another option are Woodruff-keys that are available in many different cross-sections and lengths and are ground to close tolerance to fit into milled slots. They are mass product and not very expensive. I have a whole collection of them to be used in my small 1" machine vice.

To be honest, I find theses life-rafts an eyesore and so out of style ... destroys the esthetic beauty of the rest ...

Looking good ! It is really important to have narrow, clean lines that are only engraved to the minimum needed to hold the paint.

HeroForge indeed has a lot of choices, but they are mainly for the war-gaming community and the figures have this kind of stocky appearance that this community seems to like, though it can be modulated somewhat.

mikegr, what kind of jpg-image is this about ? Some laser-cutters actually work with pixel-graphics. They process the image line by line and switch on the laser, when they encounter a black pixel and switch it off, when they meet a white pixel. So you may not need to do the conversion after all.

What is this Modelkasten-wire made off, gold ? Actually not: if you calculate it, volume of 1 m of wire is 0.03x0.03x3.1415x1000 = 2.82 mm^3 and 1 g of gold costs 63 USD, hence 2.82 mm^3 of gold cost 3,46 USD, which means that 1 m of gold wire with a diameter of 0.06 mm costs 3,46 USD as opposed to the 5 USD of the Modelkasten wire ! I tend to avoid buying from model supply houses. They buy normal industrial materials and tools and resell them to unsuspecting modellers. OK, sometimes it is difficult to buy small quantities from distributors or manufacturers and one has to pay a prime for this. As a smoker (which I am not) I would be more weary of flammable solvents and glues in the workshop than a wire that is not normally touched with a flame anyway - and I may not see my models age due to the health implications of smoking ....

Thanks, gentlemen ! Pat, many of the drawings were originally made to be used as etchning masks. I would have build up parts from layers of etched parts soldered together (and actually did). However, I found mobilising the etching process quite onerous and my workshop is not really suitable, as I don't have a 'wet' bench space. PE parts though would have come out much cleaner and with a smooth surface, In addition, the PE process allows 'surface' etching, which doesn't work so well with the laser. Of course you can engrave surfaces, but removing layers with the view to let e.g. rivets stand proud of the surface results in a rough finish due to the steps of the laser head. The laser-cutter has the advantage to have near zero mobilisation time and you can change designs and settings quickly, if they don't work. If a PE part doesn't work, you have to change the desing, make a new mask, cut a piece of brass sheet (and if it's not coated already, apply the photoresist), expose it, develop it and then finally etch it. Not quite an 'ad hoc' process. For commercial projects, once the design and process have been settled, they PE parts are very good, but so much for the kind of experimental project development I am undertaking. Keith, there have been literally dozens of 'patent' anchor models since the early 1840s or so. As ships became bigger, they needed more holding power per weight of anchor, otherwise the anchors would have become too big and undwieldy, as it still took decade bevore steam capstans and winches became common on ships. It seems that Trotman, Martins, and Inglefield were the more popular models before Hall (I think) came up with a really stockless anchor that could be hoisted into the hawse-hole, making anchor-cranes etc. unnecessary. Turning such thin parts obviously requires a lathe with good bearings and little run out. I turned the stock in steps, first one side, applying the taper with a fine file with rounded edges; then, supporting the end in the smallest female dead-centre that I have, I turned the other half and tapered it again with a file. Of course cuts have to be light, say 0.03 mm or so per pass. I found this only possible with steel, as I never found hard enough brass. The steel I am using are copper-clad welding electrodes. Easy to get and turn well with HSS-tools, not too soft and not too hard. Not sure about the composition of the ones I have, as there seems to be quite a range. Probably some Si and Mn.

Postscriptum: in a German Forum I received comments on the man-handling of the shells from a colleague, who observed the available historic drawings more attentively than me. These show in one case a winch located inside the deck-house and marked as ‘shell-hoisting winch’. In another, presumably somewhat older drawing, a substantial bracket is drawn above the shell hoisting hatch. Both features are not shown on the oldest drawings that were the main basis for this model reconstruction. I will install the bracket that was presumably used together with tackle, when the winch was not yet installed. Anchors The WESPE-Class was fitted out with two Inglefield bow anchors and (presumably) a standard anchor as stern or reserve anchor. The bow anchors are stowed on chutes and handled with two small cranes on each side. There is no drawing for the stern anchor, but the drawings seem to show chocks for its storage. There is also a hawse-hole in the stern and a crane above it. So it is likely that there has been a stern-anchor. What is not clear at all is, how the chain would have been handled and there are no stoppers or similar to belay the chain when in use. Neither is there a chain locker drawn in the stern. So there is de facto conflicting evidence. Inglefield-anchors a are complicated affair, but seem to have been rather popular at the time with the Imperial German Navy. In an instruction book for drawing in shipbuilding a nice detailed drawing of an Inglefield-anchor was found and used as the basis for the model reconstruction. Its size is taken from the WESPE-lithographs in the German Technical Museum in Munich. Drawing of an Inglefield-anchor from WAAP (1910) One could have perhaps sawn out the parts from a 0.5 mm brass or styrene sheet, but considering an overall length of the anchors of 12.5 mm this seemed to be a rather daunting task. For this reason the individual parts were drawn for the laser-cutter and cut from 0.12 mm Canson paper. The shaft and other parts were built up from several layers that were cemented together with fast-drying lacquer, resulting in some kind of composite material. Drawing of the components of an Inglefield-anchor for laser-cutting The parts then could be easily shaped using diamond and other files. After a certain amount of filing more lacquer was applied in order to prevent the fraying of the paper. Finally the built-up parts were assembled using lacquer. One half-completed anchor and parts ready for assembly of the second (I should stop taking these quick-and-dirty close-ups with the iPhone and take out the SLR camera again ...) Instead of the traditional way of shaping the shackles from wire, I decided to also cut them from paper. The bolts on the smaller shackels would have been too small to represent and were omitted. I think they turned out quite convincingly. On the other hand, the bolts that keep the parts of the anchor together were turned from steel and blackened before assemply. The standard anchor possibly could have been cut from brass and soldered together, but then, once it is painted, no one really will know the difference. So I also made the respective designs and employed the laser cutter again. The proportions were taken from an anchor drawing in the Danish Naval Yard archives of the same period. Drawing of parts for one standard anchor Laser-cut parts for the stern anchor The shaft and arms were build up from six layers this time and after lacquering them together the part was shaped using a diamond nail file and various needle and echappement files. As usual more lacquer was applied to keep the paper consolidated. Finally the flukes were lacquered on and the large shackle also cut from paper attached. Turning the stock for the stern anchor The stock was the biggest challenge, as it is only 0.3 mm in diameter in the middle and tapering off. It was turned from thin steel rod. As the anchor will be stowed in the stern, the ball at the end of the bent side will not be visible and therefore left off. The visible ball was formed by a tiny drop of white glue. Assembled anchors ready to be painted Painted anchors To be continued ...

Pipe cleaners should be available in craft-shops in various colours. At least they were in the past, when kids used them to make little sculptures and such from them. If you can't get them, there is also the good old method our mothers and grandmothers used to make 'pom-poms' on home-knit ski caps. You cut a round disc with a hole in the middle from cardboard or take a washer of appropriate size and wind string around it. You then have to make a loop around the threads along the the rim of the hole so that you can pull all the wound strings together and tie them up. Finally, you cut open the windings along the periphery and arrange everything in a nice 'pom-pom'. Not 100% sure I described the process correctly, but I am sure one can find it on the Internet.

It is always wise to compare different (secondary) sources and to dig up, if possible, the primary sources mentioned (if at all) in those secondary sources. While certain books are more trustworthy than others, there is always an element of interpretation and real evidence may be scarce. There were also many common features and practices that were so common that no one at the time thought it worth mentioning or documenting them. Ships were 'living' beings and only partially subject to rules and regulations (in the navies) or hardly at all (in the merchant navy). There was a considerable amount of discreetion on the side of the masters, particularly, when it comes to rigging. However, the responsibility for the performance of any deviation from the common practice at the time rests with the master, so that there is a certain element of conservatism involved, just to be on the safe side.

As I said, don't check models, which are the interpretation of another modeller, check the literature that draws on the sources. HMS VICTORY is a hugely different ship (in the true sense of the word) from HMS BOUNTY.