wefalck

Personally and from an aesthetic perspective, I would also prefer a conservation that is almost invisible at least to the untrained eye. You are right in saying that different standards seem to be applied to different objects. Paintings may be different in the sense that the most important aspect is the 'image', which would be seriously distorted, if all the stabilisation and touching up was done in a visible way. Not sure, why this principle is not applied to other objects. In Italy and France it seems to be accepted practice to conservation of architectural structures to replace add materials in a way that is visible. On the other hand, say in gothic cathedrals damaged parts are usually replaced by the same stone from which the original parts were made. However, sometimes a different type of surface treatment is chosen to indicate replacement parts. I think documentation of what was done is a key aspect. There arises then, however, a problem and that is how to permanently link the object and the documentation so that the latter is not lost. Plus, how to preserve and keep readable the documentation for comparable periods of time - but this is a different subject altogether (with which I have been battling professionally for years).

I am coming from a hoarder family - it took my wife a long time to (partially) understand and (partially) accept it - the question 'what do you need this for' keeps being asked and the answer 'I don't know yet' still is being met with some shaking of the head

How on Earth can one forget to have two equipped lathes ... 😱

This discussion harks back to a paper that Howard Chapelle wrote decades ago and which is available on the NRG Web-site I think. The miniaturis Lloyd McCaffery also keeps repeating the importance of using durable materials and fasting techniques. There is actually a dilemma, particularly for those working on more modern subjects, that some of the traditional ship modelling materials and techniques do not work very well for modern ships made from iron and steel. Wood may not be suitable and working with e.g. brass and solder can be difficult with very small parts. There are two options either to not build such models, or to use (with caution) materials and techniques that might be frowned upon. I use steel, for instance, even though Chapelle spoke against it, simply, because it is well neigh impossible to turn certain small parts in brass, because brass usually is too soft - and feel guilty. What can I do ? On the subject of conservation vs. restoration: quite some years ago I worked in a small (environmental) consultancy company in Rome, which had another branch working on the conservation of archaeological artefacts. Having always been interested in the subject, I learned quite a bit about the strategies and objectives from chatting to them and when they showed me their work (which included inter alia conserving the frescos in what is perhaps the oldest surviving church at the Forum Romanum, which was then discovered quite recently). One principle was to not assimilate the new materials used, so as to blend in with the rest, but to make it stand out, so that one can clearly distinguish between the historic substance and that added for conservation reason. So this is clearly against the idea of 'restoration' that tries to achieve a unified and possibly aesthetically pleasing appearance. It certainly is a different concept from that applied by earlier generations, that tried to 'restore' the appearance of works of art or artefacts. These are different ethics, though I think from a scientific-technical point of view it would be possible to achieve a restoration with a level of intrusion similar to that of conservation. I would fully agree with the view that a full replacement of rigging is a no-no on models of historic value. With increasing knowledge and technical-scientific means, we can extract more and more information from the remains. Removing them, means that we destroy historic evidence that might be valuable to future generations. Today we may not be in the position to really judge and value that evidence, though we might think otherwise (as did previous generations often, as is evidenced by misguided 'restorations'). ... and my father always made a joke about a 300 year old table, where the legs and the plate had been replaced from time to time ...

The spindle-cartridges bored for WW-collets for the Unimats sell at 300-400 USD on ebay ... however, the Unimat is not really a watchmaking machine. It might work for clockmaking and is used as such by modellers, who do both. With a screw-on collet-holder and ball-cranks with fixed handles, the Unimats would become much more useful.

The Chinese have been flooding ebay et al. with these thingies in various configurations for some time now. A couple of observations on the 'designs' (not really designs, but put together from commercially available parts). - there is no separate bearing for the spindle; this can be ok, if the motor has ball-bearings (some Chines motors are available with such); however, motor bearings are for radial loads, not for axial loads, as occur during turning; one should have an axial bearing too. - the motor is uncovered and the collector might get covered quickly in dust ... - they use a drill-chuck on the spindle end, which is a no-no; drill-chucks are not designed for axial loads, as they occur during turning; one might think of replacing the chuck with an ES collet-holder; much safer and more precise. - There is no tool-rest for the gravers; one should configure a T-rest, as commonly used on wood- or watchmakers lathes. In summary, these thingies might be ok for back-room workshops in China, India or such places, but could be significantly improved with little expenditure. I think, for less than 100 EUR/USD/GBP one could configure a much better tool with parts easily available from ebay et al.

Advice on what ? You are living the model engineer's heaven/Mekka - there so many books on basic lathe operation, including one specifically on Unimat lathes, if I remember well. Brass cutting tools have a zero top-rake for a start. You can fashion them from 1/4 or 1/8 tool blanks on a grinder and finish them off on a stone. There are tutorials for this on the Net. Speed is not really terribly important in our non-commercial context. You have get a feel for it, when working with the lathe. For brass belaying pins, I would roughen out the principal dimensions with cutting tools and finish off with files and wet-and-dry sandpaper and/or steel wool. Keith Aug recently showed a useful steady, for turning such slender parts. In my threads there are other, more elaborate versions of steadies for such work. I found it difficult to get brass hard enough for such turning jobs. Therefore, I either use brass nails as starting material, because the material is work-hardenend from the stamping process, or steel (which is frowned upon by some, due to its liability of rusting, but blackening will help against it). I hope you have some collets for your lathe(s). Working with such small parts, as belaying pins, in the three-jaw chuck can be quite dangerous, particularly when using files. If you don't have collets, try to find some.

BTW, there are also hollow burrs to round-off the ends of wire. They come in various sizes. Very handy.

I don't know what 'AeroGloss' is. A cellulose- and solvent-based sanding filler would normally do the job. Depending on the type of wood, one or maximum two coats will be required. Rub down in between with fine steel wool (but take care to remove all steel swarf!) and after the last coat. Acrylics don't like 'oily' (i.e. hydrophobic) surfaces, but are ok on almost everything else. I don't have any experience with Tamiya acrylics, but tend to use German (Schmincke) or Spanish (Vallejo) products coming out of houses that also supply artists. Personally, I don't like to apply acrylics with a brush. Perhaps I am too slow and not dexterous enough with a brush. Never glue anything on paint. Your joint will only be as good as the paint sticks to the surface. For the coppering it depends on how you apply the metal strips. Most cements would probably better key into the bare wood and some cements may be incompatible with the sanding filler used. This needs to be tried out, particularly for self-adhesive copper strips.

"It seems having the correct tools, knowing how and when to use them is key to producing a good result." - Indeed Actually 155USD for a set of a dozen Vallorbe-files is a good price !

I would use a plastic tea-sieve or make one from those modern plastic fabric tea-bags. I also use plastic tweezers when working with corrosive chemicals.

The thread veers off from the pen-topic, but just to add a couple of comments on acrylics and airbrushing: - there are different formulations of acrylics, using either plain water or water-alcohol mixes as solvent; using a different solvent may actually break down the kind of emulsion state in which they are, clogging the airbrush in the event; it doesn't need to be their brand of thinner, but it does have to be chemically the same. - I don't know too much of the model manufacturers' range of acrylic paints, as I don't really need these 'authentic' colours they specialise in; I am using artist's acrylics, either from the German manufacturer Schmincke or the Spanish Vallejo (which are first catering for the artist market and then for modellers); getting the dilution right for spraying always has been a pain and some 30 years ago I already went for the ready-diluted ones; some of my drip bottles are that old and still give good results. - the process of hardening of acrylics is a mixed one, cross-linking the acrylics molecules and diffusing out the solvent (water); both take time and therefore it takes longer than for paints based on organic solvents and hardening resins; spraying thin coats in 24h intervalls speeds up the process of hardening, as the water doesn't have to diffuse through a thick layer. - spray-painting with enamels and their likes in an apartment is a no-no, because it is difficult to install a proper extraction for fumes; with my acrylics I get away with just a cardboard box to catch the overspray; depends always, of course, how often you use the airbrush and how big the areas to be painted are; cleaning the airbrush from enamels is also an issue, due to the waste solvents, while acrylics can be easily cleaned under running water. I have a big collection of Humbrol tins, some of them probably historic by now (could be 50+ years old), but I have rarely touched them since I bought the airbrush in the early 1980s.

The rope colour depends on period and region - plus the treatment and grime as mentioned above. Hemp was the main raw material until cotton was introduced from the US. Hemp has a pale yellow to beige colour, while cotton is more whitish. Stockholm (pine) tar leads to a darkish brown colour, while coal tar makes the ropes black. With age and weathering, both tars become more greyish. If you work on an 'artisanal' style model, you may want to have only two colours, for tarred and for untarred rope. When you want depict a real life ship, you may want to use several slightly different colours to represent different makes and ages of the ropework.

It would have suffered from the same flaw as all revolvers, namely the poor sealing between the barrel and the revolving chambers for the charges/shot. The Gatling- and Hotchkiss-systems push the cartridge into a seat forming part of the barrel, so that the expanding cartridge seals against loss of pressure.

This gives you a feeling for how many trees went into the building of such ships and even the model consumes quite a bit - and well-shaped bits 👍

Gloves on a lathe are an absolute no-no. Many fingers got ripped off, because the glove got caught in a chuck etc. Don't underestimate the power of even small hobby lathes. An old engineer's trick is to use a piece of cardboard as fixed steady. If you have a fixed steady, you can attach the cardboard to this. If you don't you make one yourself e.g. with some pieces of wood. As the makeshift steadies are easy to make and cheap, you may have even several of them for very thin parts. In the old days lathes also often had a steady that formed a kind of frame (as in a slide projector) into which two pieces of wood or cardboard could be slid, one below and one above the work piece. Both parts had a half-round hole of the approximate diameter of the workpiece cut in. The parts could be clamped in the frame.

Such small chain would be difficult to find ... I found that chain, at least in small scales, can be reasonably well simulated by twisting two wires together, but not too tightly. Two lengths of such wire are then again twisted together against the original direction. This will looks reasonably convincing like a somewhat twisted chain.

How would you shift ballast at sea ? It would be nearly impossible to get to it, given that the cargo usually was wedged in order to prevent it from moving around. This would require to open the carefully closed hatches at sea too - the hatches were covered by (double) layers of tarpaulin, nailed down in order to provide a water-tight closure. The only access to the holds were the very small cargo hatches. There would be also no space, except the limited deck space, to store loads while re-arranging the hold ... this is different from warships, where more intermediate deck space was available and stores were taken out of the hold regularly. There the cooper would collapse barrels etc. cautiously for later re-assembly and re-use. In the tea-loading ports there were experts that would carefully stow the boxes according to size and value (the most valuable in areas the least likely to be exposed to damage by water). The boxes were litterally hammered into place, I seem to have read in one of the books cited above. No chance to get them out at sea. This tight storage on commercial ships made fires in the hold so dreaded. Very difficult to get access.

London has become a rather desolate place from the maritime history point of view ... but we are getting off topic here.

And I know someone, who hasn't set his foot again into the Science Museum since ...

There are whole books on ship stability, performance and loading. Just a few additional observations: - the behaviour in sea of a ship depends on how far the centre of gravity of the ballast plus load is below the centre of gravity of the hull; the lower the stable the ship is, but also stiffer, i.e. it works harder in the sea and more strain is put on the rig. - the ship designer strived to keep the wetted surface (up to a point) and the hull speed more or less the same at all angles of heeling in order ensure equal performance. - the loading of the ship was the responsibility of the captain and perhaps the suprecargo; until the later 19th Century there were no obligatory rules for the remaining freeboard (although there has been 'Lloyds Rule' since the 1830s) and the Plimsoll Mark was not introduced compulsary until the end of the century; the captain would also decide by his experience with the ship on the trim, i.e. the difference in draught forward and aft; the trim influence the maneurvrability under sail and the performance when heeling. - load, centres of gravity and trim are only one set of parametres that determine the overall performance of a ship in the sense of the duration of passages; a keep variable here are the experience, knowlege and intuition of the captain that lets him choose the right route at the right time of the year; there are many examples for (theoretically) slower ships to make shorter passages; the books by Lubbock for instance are full of such stories.

From an economical perspective, commercial sailing ships used two types of ballast, the one that was permanently required to make the ship stable and the other to make up for a lack of cargo in order to keep it stable. The room in the hold is valuable, so you would keep the amount of ballast to a minimum. Some traders got away with no or little balast, while others, such as the tea-clippers needed lots of it, but could justify the loss of cargo space due to the high price the commodity they were transporting would fetch. An important consideration for balasting was the availability of the respective material, its cost and also how easy it could be brought on board or discharged again. Sand was a cheap temporary option in many regions, but you ran the risk that the pumps got clogged. Harbours usually had an area, where sand-ballast was allowed to be thrown over board. Violation of these rules could entail hefty fines in some harbours, as it could lead to silting up the harbour. Whenever possible, the temporary ballast was some material that could be sold at the destination harbour, so being something like a high-density, but comparatively low value cargo. I have two examples: - many houses in the Caribbean are built from bricks that came from Europe as ballast; on the (formerly Danish) US Virgin Island these are called 'Flensborg Stone', after the town of Flensburg in Germany, which belonged in personal-union of the reigning house in the 18th and 19th century to Denmark (until 1864); there were many brick-factories around the Baltic coast in this area. - the streets of most towns around the southern Baltic coast are paved with big slabs of igneus rocks (e.g. granite), which came from Scandinavia in the timber ships to counteract inter alia the deck-loads of timber.

Of course it is wonderful to watch a skilful craftsman at work and a job well executed probably gives these craftsmen great job-satisfaction. However, what counts in the real world is the quality of the result, how much time is needed to arrive there and how much it costs. Modern technology allows us to produce intricate parts that would be very difficult, if not impossible to make with traditional tools and methods. Perhaps I could have made these steering-wheels as a sandwich of five or ten on my filing machine, but even the finest and smallest commercially available files (and I have these) may have been to coarse. My original intention was to use photoetching, but this is always a very complex procedure, when you cannot have it set up permanently somewhere - not really an ad hoc useable tool. Perhaps CNC-milling would be an alternative too, but here you always have the problem of rounded corners due to the practical limitations of tool size, which is probably 0.3 mm diameter, compared to the 0.1 mm for the laser-point. I was aware of the limitations of this lasercutter before I made the decision to go for it. Unfortunately, I don't have the space for a bigger and more powerful machine. Apart from the cutting-speed, I am not so sure that tracing a vector-drawing gives really a better end-result. The slightly jagged edges would more or less remain due to the motion of the stepper-motors. They might become somewhat more smoothed out though due to the fact that the laser would remain powered during the movement. As the laser-dot is twice the size of the steps, a certain smoothing already occurs.

Somehow these struts appear to be an afterthought, when they discovered that the upper part of the bulwark and the rails were too weak ... they neither look terribly nice, nor is their presence safe. On the other hand, when you look at racing pictures, you see the crew kind of sliding down to the lee rails, so perhaps these struts also provide something to hold onto.

Well, you may have noticed that these seem to be the 'balanced' variety: they are pivoted in the upper third, so that the lower part swings outward and the upper part inward - where some seem to collide with a strut. There more traditional ones indeed are hinged along their top edge, but this means that you can see the hinge from the outside, which may not be desirable on a yacht.