wefalck

OK, if I understand you correctly, what you are looking for is an arbor to fit the PROXXON 3-jaw-chuck to another lathe ? The problem is that the 16 mm x 1 mm is not a standard metric fine thread and most small lathes would have either a 12 x 1 or a 14 x1 thread on the spindle nose. To what kind of lathe do you want to fit this PROXXON 3-jaw-chuck ? There are various 3- and 4-jaw-chucks of the same body diameter (45 mm I believe) with either 12x1 or 14x1 thread on the market of Indian or Chinese make. You can find them on ebay etc. from about 20€ (aluminium body and jaws) or 50€ (steel body and jaws) upward. They also sell straight 10 mm arbors for them with the respective male spindle thread.

I would not think so, you can check on the PROXXON Web-site: (https://www.proxxon.com/en/micromot/27020.php. The spindle has a 16 mm x1 mm thread, while the chuck probably has same thread as their hand-held equipment - not sure, but it may be 3/8"-24

I think there is a misconception here. The three-jaw-chuck screws onto the spindle of the lathe, while the the drill-chuck goes into the tailstock, replacing the fixed centre. The drill-chuck has nothing to do on the spindle. It would be even dangerous to use a drill chuck in the spindle, as drill-chucks are not designed for side-pressure.

For this approach you have to be sure that the bulkheads are running correctly into the keel-plank for the envisaged plank thickness. In the original question, this was exactly the problem. The outside, i.e. lower, rabbet-line is defined by the plan, while the inside line depends on the angle with which the frame/bulkhead runs into the keel. I agree, that this line is best worked out on the model itself.

You are probably right about the internal friction that determines inter alia, if and how a rope will stretch. I don't have really experience with natural fibres, as the really small-scale ropes I made are all made from fly-tying yarns, but think that twisting the strands to nearly the break-point will result in a tighter rope with a shallower angle of the twist, more internal friction and, hence, less tendency to stretch. Ropes from natural fibres will always change their length a bit as a fuction of ambient humity, as the fibres may swell, resulting actually in a slight shortening of the rope. I gather this is one of the reasons why people wax the ropes, to prevent humidity uptake to some extent.

Pat, don't frighten the poor guy off You are absolutely right, Pat, that there are so many different factors that come to bear - the best strategy is to give it a try and keep practicing, perhaps at the beginning with some cheap yarns to get a feeling for what is happening. Getting good material will be the main bottle-neck, but when you read the various contributions on the this forum, you will probably find suggestions for sources that are accessible in your respective country. Another important point is to not be afraid and tighten up the strands to near the breaking point, only then you will get a good tight rope. Unravelling or not when cut depends also on the material used, natural fibres have a higher internal friction and tend to stay together, while man-made fibres gives smoother ropes, but because of their smoothness also have a tendency to spring opoen.

I would give the cardboard tubes a good coat of sanding filler to present the edges from fraying. Also looks neater.

Ad 1: I think it would be lot easier to cut the rabbet before any bulkheads fitted. The reason is that the angle typically is shallower as you can get with with tools, as the bulkheads would allow (depends on the technique though). Conversely, you will need to fit the stem and stern posts, as the rabbet usually continues along the posts and the keel, so should have the same depth all around. Ad 2: If the bulkhead finishes before the bearding line, you may have to cut away from the wood of the keel in order to continue with a smooth profile up to the depth of the rabbet. Conversely, if the bulkhead reach below the bearding line, then something is wrong with the bulkheads. It could be that they are notched too deeply or the profile in the lower part is wrong. If you have a plan, check against it.

Which machine ? Normally it is very simple, you attach the thread from which to make the rope on one hook and then lead it from one side of the machine to the other either three or four times, depending on whether you want to make three- or four-strand rope. There are also two building instructions for two types of ropewalks here on the Forum: http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-rigging-and-sails.php. They presumably also have some operating instructions with them.

Ad 1: normally, ropewalks make ropes of a certain maximum length, depending on the length of the rails used; there are more complicated machines, that can make ropes of (quasi) unlimited length. Ad 2: what do you mean by "mark ropes" ?

One should live in the right place ... for building as well for sailing a beauty like her ...

I think the main point is that the yard is safely suspended from the toppng-lifts. If you were to achieve the same thing mechanically when the yard is in the raised position, the top-mast would have to be a lot higher in order to keep the angle between the topping-lifts and the mast reasonable. In this case the topping-lifts would need to be 'running', as one has to slacken them while the sails are set. All this would add weight to the top without adding any real advantage. I never looked into this issue, but I would think the height of the centre of gravity would also be an issue in 17th century ships - think WASA. Also, anything that can be lowered reduces the strain on the rig, when the ship is rolling and pitching, as the length of the fulcrum is reduced.

Yes, these are Bronze Age. Probably skin-boats, but science is not of unified opinion, as no remains have been found yet, as far as I know, There are also Viking-Age petroglyphs of ships, on rune-stones.

... and the yards were safely and squarely suspended from the topping-lifts in the lowered position, which eased the work of the men aloft. In general, these topping-lifts were standing to simplify the rig. See the recent discussion on EdT's YOUNG AMERICA. Also, it would be difficult and dangerous to step out onto the yard of a top-sail in a hoisted position. The ratlines get very narrow up there.

1100 BC ? I gather this was a typo and you meant AD ? The Viking period is generally set around the late 8th century to the end of the 11th century, I believe. These anoxic conditions in the Black Sea led to the preservation of organic materials, just like for the Viking ships in the bogs. It would be difficult, however, to excavate these ships, as they are all below 200 m depth, were you can only access them using submersibles or diving robots - at least with current technology.

I've tried yarn as well, but it doesn't look as smooth as wire. A possibility would be black monofilament, but it is not so easy to knot in knots that don't open again and into equal knots.

I have also been battling with the subject of very small chains (actually chain rails in 1:160 scale) and found a (for the moment at least) reasonably satisfactory solution by twisting together two strands of wire of the scale thickness of the wire from which the chain would have been made - as you did, but then twisting two strands of these twisted wires together in the opposite direction. Looks reasonably close to a twisted chain ... no pictures yet, as I did only some experiments.

Don't seem to remember having seen any brackets for patent windlass handles, but in any case they would require to be lashed down so as not to become dislodged in a heavy sea - they are far more difficult to replace than the old wooden ones.

When I 'google' for LUXO-lamps I get articulated architects' lamps, not gooseneck lamps. That's something else. They can be bought everywhere, at least here in Europe. There are varieties with ordinary sockets (E27 in Europe) and elongated ones for fluorescent tubes (IKEA made a nice one, which I have, but it is now useless as they had a very unusual fluorescent tube in it - marketing so that you bought from them). I am still using the architects lamp that I got as a teenager in the late 1970s for my writing desk, but have fitted a large LED-globe to it to give a lot of quite uniform light that still can be directed to where I need it. One problem with this kind of ariculated lamp is that it needs to be fixed usually to the back or the side of the table/desk. My work-table is framed-in by shelves on three sides, so I had to be somewhat inventive to mount the lamp. The magnifying lamps on articulated arms have usually the same problem, as you cannot pivot the lens sideways - the link at the end of the arm only allows to tilt and turn the lamp head. So you must mount it somewhere opposite to where you are sitting. I have one mounted to my lathe work-stand and again had to be inventive, as the workstand is onyl 30 cm deep, while these lamps are designed for tables 60 to 70 cm deep. BTW, I found the magnifying lamps with rectangular lenses more useful than the ones with a round one.

Goose-neck lamps are very useful, indeed, as a concept. However, I found that some products, e.g. the one from IKEA, just does not give enough lumens. They are not designed for our purposes. If you find a model with standard sockets - shy away from models in which you can't change the bulb, you can replace the bulb with more powerful LED ones. There is no worry anymore over overheating. Personally, I prefer a warm (3200 K) light colour. Multiply the wattage of the LED by 8, that gives you the equivalent to an incandescent bulb.

I may be stupid, but it isn't to me, sorry. Is the pin with the wire inside the tube and you form the sharp corners with it ? Perhaps also the term 'spin' is confusing, as it normally implies serveral, if not many turns.

Can you post a picture, Dave ? I don't seem to understand what you do with the tube, once you bent the wire around the pin etc.

Double top-sails already in 1854 ? This must be then a very early example. I thought that they were only introduced in the early 1860s - or maybe this applies to Europe only.

Have a look at the other recent thread on eye-bolts ... the can be made very small.

Just a couple of additions to Ed's well-reasoned response: - here and on other fora there has been a repeated discussion of what actually 'tar' is. To summarise: in the pre-industrial ages this was a destillation product from resinous tree-bark, namely that of pine-trees; the Eastern Baltic area was a major source, due to the prevalence of such trees there and considerable amounts where shipped through Stockholm, hence the stuff became know as Stockholm Tar; this tar varies in colour, but is essentially dark brown. The two main byproducts from coal destillation to obtain town-gas were coke and various tars; these are chemically different from the wood-tar and essentially black or very dark brown in colour; their smell is also different; due to the large quantities of town-gas produced from the 1840s on, also large quantities of tar became available and began to replace Stockholm Tar, being a lot cheaper. Both products have different properties and, hence, different applications. Stockholm Tar stays sticky, unless whethered at sea, while some of the coal-tar solidify and become quite dry, one volatiles have gassed off. - hemp is a natural fibre and changes its property with humidity content mainly, even if the strands of the rope had been tarred originally; so adjusting the rigging is mostly likely a need over a period of months or years; covering the lanyards in thick Stockholm Tar would make this more difficult, covering in thick coal-tar almost impossible. - the sailing properties of ship depend on many factors, including the trim, the draught, and the rake of the masts; it is known that masters optimised the rigging for given conditions in order to improve the sailing performance; so lanyards stuck in the dead-eyes would not help. - we should not be mislead by the appearance of static museum ships; there compromises have to made for the lack of the continuous and intensive maintenance a working vessel would see; so on such ships you are likely to see a lot of paint and tar slapped onto parts that are prone to deterioration. - also on modern ships rigged with steel wire supporting steel masts you are likely to see many more parts being virtually immobilised with thick coats of paint or tar, because there is no need for adjustment.