EdT

Thank you all for the comments and likes. Very perceptive, Micheal. I see I cannot get away with anything here. A number of things are going on here. First, the length of the anchor and the bar are based on a rule of thumb that they be equal in length. The drawing was based on a length of 13'-0". Subsequent checking of sources argued for a lengths as small as 12'. The as-built length of the anchor is about 12' 6" and I made the length of the bar about the same. Therefore, seeing the bar slightly shorter than the drawing did not concern me, but when doing the final drawing check, I saw that the bar length on the drawing is too long because of the way I placed the ball at the end. The overall length has been corrected on the drawing. Both lengths are 13' as the drawing now stands. I may downsize it toward 12', but knowing that there was a lot of dimensional variation in these American anchors of the period, I may not bother. For example, Campbell (China Tea Clippers) gives a 12'3" overall length for a 1200 ton ship. YA was 1900 tons. So, welcome to my world. David, I did not bother with any lubricant. I try to avoid using it around the lathe (and mill) to avoid getting it on wood pieces. Using the chuck as a tailstock center was pure expedient. A better method would be to use a short piece of 1/8" id tubing held in the chuck. I could easily have done this but wanted to try the chuck. It worked fine. Tom, I glossed over many of the steps in the process, but I am documenting it better for future reference. I should have some pictures of the second anchor within a few days. Ed

Young America - extreme clipper 1853 Part 162 – Bower Anchors 2 Although I worked on the two bower anchors simultaneously, I will stick with the iron bar stock version through to its completion, then post the work on the wooden stock version in one sequence. Although very similar, there are a number of differences in their construction. There are a lot of steps to making these, so I will just summarize here. The first picture shows work on the large shackle at the top of the first anchor. The shackles on the bower anchors are by far the largest on the ship. In the picture one of the ends is being flattened to increase its breadth. It was then drilled for the bolt holes. The next picture shows the shackle bolted to the top of the anchor shaft. A touch of silver solder on one end keeps the bolt in place. Iron bar stock anchors were coming into use during the YA period. Some had a simple straight-ended bar. Some had screwed or pinned balls at the end and most of the later versions featured a right angle bend at the end. I decided on the simple straight bar. In the next picture the 6” diameter bar stock, with its two 9” bosses, is being turned from a 1/8” brass rod. The rod is held on center at the tail end by the drill chuck just lightly tightened. A file is being used to finish the diameter. Flexing in long thin turnings like this makes final sizing difficult with cutting tools but the file works fine on the last 10 thousandths or so near the middle. In the next picture the bar has been finished turning, cut to length and drilled for the forelock that will keep it in place on the anchor shaft. In the picture a jeweler’s saw is being used to cut the slot for the forelock. In the next picture the bar has again been drilled, this time for the eyebolt that will secure the forelock chain. The eyebolt with chain was then soldered into the hole. I am making all eyebolts from twisted wire, in this case the wire was passed through the chain before spinning it up. The next picture shows all the parts for this anchor, including the forelock. I want to blacken the bar assembly and the anchor separately. The bar will finally be held in by the forelock. The next picture shows the forelock and the chain connected by a shackle. On small shackles like this one the bolt end is simulated by silver soldering a straight brass rod across the ends. I expect to use this method on the many rigging shackles to come later. By the period of this ship shackles had largely replaced ringbolts that had to be permanently forged to the eyebolt beforehand. The beauty of the shackle was that it could be easily fitted and removed. The method shown above offers no such advantage as will be seen later where shackles are fitted to eyebolts in wood or in rigging. In the above picture the shackle has been prepared for soldering with both the chain and the forelock threaded onto it. I used easy solder and a very light pass with the torch to prevent welding the whole array together in one blob. The last picture shows the completed anchor. I almost hate to blacken this. Ed

Very nice work, Frank - very precise, very clean. Don't beat yourself up over the mistake. We all make plenty of them - and some even see the light of day. I would consider Druxeys solution or ignore it. Ed

Beautiful work, Frank. Your meticulous style is making me crazy. Ed

Dirk, the soldering fixture is available from the same source as the link posted above. The clamps are very solid and the jaws are tungsten. Ed

Thank you, all. The joints are silver soldered. I have been using copper-phosphorus solder in paste form with flux from a syringe. I believe this solder blackens easier - particularly if using liver of sulfur on copper. The solder has a lower (only 3%) silver content and melts at 1325 deg F. On the flukes I used Easy grade that melts at 1205 deg F. I use a propane torch for soldering - s mall one on small parts. I used a full size torch on some of the anchor work for more heat. As I said in the post, I would have used oxy-propane instead of the the large torch, but was out of oxygen. It goes fast and is expensive. I will be blackening the anchors with Birchwood Casey selenious brass blackening solution. A link to my source for solder is given below. Joints for silver soldering must be tight because the solder - unlike soft solder - will not fill gaps. For this reason joints are very thin and become relatively invisible when filed off. https://contenti.com/jewelry-soldering-supplies/solder Ed

Bravo, Dave. Lovely carvings. Ed

Thank you all very much, but lets not go overboard. I'd much rather talk about anchors - or even deadeye chains. Ed

Looking great, NIls! Ed

Young America - extreme clipper 1853 Part 161 – Bower Anchors 1 Work on the channel deadeyes and chains has been progressing, but a change of pace was necessary, so I began work on the ship’s anchors. Like most ships Young America carried several – probably two bower anchors, a smaller stream anchor and an even smaller kedge anchor. This last was probably small enough to be stowed in one of the forward lockers or below the forecastle so I will not model it. Over her very long career she carried different types of bower anchors, and very likely more than one type at a time. The photo taken at San Francisco, probably in the 1860’s shows her swinging a wood stock type from her starboard cathead. The New York photo, which I believe was taken later, shows a Trotmans anti-fouling type on the port cathead. These two types span the range of development during the period. I decided to make one Woodstock and one bar stock – bypassing the Trotmans type for now.. The first picture shows the arms of one of these being sawed out of some 1/8” thick brass plate. This took a while and used a few jeweler saw blades, but it worked well to rough out the pieces using a drawing fragment as a pattern. The next picture shows both bower anchors during fitting of the two main pieces. The shaft was silver soldered to the arms using copper-phosphorus solder. The anchor to the right has been soldered and given a first filling. This joint took some heat. I used a full sized propane torch. I would have used the small oxy-propane torch but was out of O2. In the next picture the side plates that thicken the shaft around the hole for the bar have been soldered on. The second fluke is set up to be soldered. In the next picture the flukes have been soldered on and the holes drilled for the bar and the shackle. In this picture the filing and smoothing is well along. The final anchor, less the bar stock is shown in the next picture. This is almost ready for blackening. I expect to mount this anchor on the port side of the forecastle in roughly the position shown in the last picture and may secure the stream anchor to its shaft. These anchors obviously took up a lot of deck space and also added considerable weight to the bow, but this seems to have been where they were stowed. They were not easy to move around. Ed

Robin, I usually do not let the camera lens wander above my wrists, but for you I make an exception - per your request.... Please excuse the typical clutter. All the best, Ed ps. should have an update posting shortly.

Hi Gary. Great work. I agree with Laman about the hold down screws. Unless you have another plan for holding down the final model, now is the time. Model is looking great - and of course, so familiar. Ed

Lovely and unique work, Druxey. Ed

Most of the comments here, I believe, refer to spindle speed. For a given spindle speed, cutting speed varies with the diameter of the tool, or on a lathe the diameter of the piece. Cutting speed increases with diameter for a given spindle speed. So, cutting speed, ideally, should be optimized for each individual setup based on the speed of the cutter at the cut. Small diameter wood turnings, for example, require very high spindle speeds. High spindle speeds on turnings not only produces a finer surface but also reduces torque on the piece at the cut, reducing breakage. I believe the standard Sherline mill is a bit slow for routing wood, thus leaving a rough surface. Although I do not have the high speed attachment, I believe it would be a good investment. Would routers and Dremel type tools have very high spindle speeds for this reason - much higher than machining tools like lathes and mills that are basically designed for metal where recommended cutting speeds are much lower. Ed .

Hull length is 238', about 230' at the waterline, keel is about 220'. Ed

Thank you, Glenn and Karl. Seems like a while since the last update. Not too many pictures lately - unless there is interest in some of me at the computer working on rigging information - a major task. Ed

Looking great, Gary. Ed

Thanks for that description, Glenn. It is true that timing is everything with this. I find the "black art" to be the most consistently unpredictable of all modeling processes. You have obviously mastered it. Ed

Glenn, your posts need a "love this" button. Truly amazing and beautiful work. I seem to remember from an earlier post that you used Birchwood Casey to blacken the brass. On these large pieces, I assume you are swabbing them full strength per their directions? I find that that works well using a Q-tip. Your blackening looks perfect. Ed By the way, the ruler in the pictures is most helpful.

I have a thought on this that may be worth pursuing with some additional research. Refractory brick set on a flexible metal plate may not have had mortared joints. Any such joints would soon crack with the flexing of the deck. Mortar that worked loose would soon leave gaps, allowing radiant heat from the stove to reach the plate (or deck?) below. The brick or stone may have been contained in a frame and held closely like the joints shown in your photo. In the Victory restoration the brick (or stone) floor is contained with a wood frame outside the stove perimeter. If mortared, I believe the joints would be very thin - at least that is the current practice in my experience with refractory linings. I believe I would go without mortar, but that's just a guess. Something to chew on. Ed

Lovely work, Maury and thanks for the plug. But..... one 's' in Plexiglas please. (Still guarding the trademark like a good former employee.) Ed

Bravo, Nils! Really coming together nicely. I love the deck machinery. Ed

Beautiful work, Druxey. My vote would be for the blades to be vertical, but this does not show off the lovely blade decoration as well as the horizontal arrangement. I am always puzzled by the length of these sweeps because the mechanical advantage for the rower is really minimized - requiring much more force on each stroke - to say nothing of traffic problems. Of course shorter oars would require more strokes. Was there a reason? Ed

Magnificent,Johann.

Very good comments on precision and scale, Micheal. Thanks for giving me an excuse to continue with the subject. You are quite right and I agree that 1/8 at 1:72 scale - an actual .0017" - has little meaning on the model - a mere swipe of sandpaper or two. When one considers that the original offsets table was created by taking physical measurements from a 1:48 scale half hull model where 1/8" = .0026", the idea of this precision becomes even foggier. Considering that even in the presence of measurement error from the 1:48 model to the offsets table, shipwrights still lofted patterns using these table dimensions. So, we can take some confidence that the table is fairly representative of the constructed ship. From the modeler's perspective, precise drawings based on the table can - in a way - be considered to have "zero" ( i.e. < .0017") error, since the precision of the CAD drawing is set at 1/8" real world. (When drawing a part - say a deadeye - and displaying it at say half the size of the screen, a 1/8" (actual) change in a dimension is easily detectable.) With this in mind the modeler can proceed confidently with construction, comfortable that the drawings and patterns do not already contain an accumulation of error from measurements, tracing, setting out, pencil width, and the like. This accumulation of error - when added to construction error - can have noticeable effects. I have seen this evidenced at various times in postings on this site as modelers wrestle with the issue - to say nothing of the accepted practice of heavy sanding/paring to fair hull framing. Don't get me wrong. I would not for a moment represent that my modeling achieves anything like this high level of precision, nor would I suggest that anyone set such a standard as a goal. However, it is of comfort to me that I have only to deal with my own modeling error and not error built into the drawings. So, to me, that is the value of all this. I can accept the drawings and deal with or accept my own inability to duplicate them in wood. The other value of this somewhat arcane but useful discussion is that understanding error and precision can only be helpful in improving one's work. In reading all the above comments, I trust everyone recognizes the distinction between the concept of error and the entirely separate issue of drawing mistakes. If not, I will be happy to try and explain. Comments welcome! Ed Almost forgot, Micheal. On the 6" deadeyes, the largest source of drilling error: flexing of the drill bit. The only remedy: keeping the bit projection very short.