jhearl

The advantage of the wider table is that you can use the Byrne's sliding table without having to remove the rip fence. You just slide the fence over to the right. I go back and forth between cross-cutting and ripping frequently so the wider table was worth it for me. It would drive me nuts to have to keep removing and re-installing the fence.  I also bought the micrometer but after trying it a couple times, it has been sitting in the drawer ever since. I work at larger scales (typically 1:16), so that degree of accuracy is unnecessary for me.
 
Cheers -
John

As with many things, the answer can be found with a simple experiment. Glue some scrap planking to another piece of wood then see how long it takes to set up. I typically use generic yellow glue and I am often surprised to find it has set up in just a few minutes. 

The advantage of the wider table is that you can use the Byrne's sliding table without having to remove the rip fence. You just slide the fence over to the right. I go back and forth between cross-cutting and ripping frequently so the wider table was worth it for me. It would drive me nuts to have to keep removing and re-installing the fence.  I also bought the micrometer but after trying it a couple times, it has been sitting in the drawer ever since. I work at larger scales (typically 1:16), so that degree of accuracy is unnecessary for me.
 
Cheers -
John

The advantage of the wider table is that you can use the Byrne's sliding table without having to remove the rip fence. You just slide the fence over to the right. I go back and forth between cross-cutting and ripping frequently so the wider table was worth it for me. It would drive me nuts to have to keep removing and re-installing the fence.  I also bought the micrometer but after trying it a couple times, it has been sitting in the drawer ever since. I work at larger scales (typically 1:16), so that degree of accuracy is unnecessary for me.
 
Cheers -
John

As with many things, the answer can be found with a simple experiment. Glue some scrap planking to another piece of wood then see how long it takes to set up. I typically use generic yellow glue and I am often surprised to find it has set up in just a few minutes. 

The advantage of the wider table is that you can use the Byrne's sliding table without having to remove the rip fence. You just slide the fence over to the right. I go back and forth between cross-cutting and ripping frequently so the wider table was worth it for me. It would drive me nuts to have to keep removing and re-installing the fence.  I also bought the micrometer but after trying it a couple times, it has been sitting in the drawer ever since. I work at larger scales (typically 1:16), so that degree of accuracy is unnecessary for me.
 
Cheers -
John

It seems to me there's a simple way to answer your question 1. Take a piece of your planking material and measure its width. Soak it for however long you think necessary, let it dry completely, then remeasure it. Question answered.
 
Cheers -
John

I would offer a somewhat contrarian view and say that macro gear may not be the best solution for close-up model photography. I own a Nikon D800 and three different macro lenses plus a bellows and tripod - altogether some quite expensive equipment. I use none of it for model photography. Instead, I use what would be considered a high-end point-and-shoot (Fuji X100F).  That camera has a fixed focal-length 23mm lens and a 16 megapixel sensor. The camera cost around $1K new but now sells for around $500 used. It has a lot of controls that someone used to a digital SLR would want, which is one of the reasons for it's high cost. But, I can use that camera hand-held, in relatively poor light (it has an f2 lens), and get very good results. It is able to close-focus to just under 4 inches (so-called macro mode) but because of its 23mm lens, it's also useful for taking a shot of a whole boat. I almost never use a tripod - just hand held. The advantage of the 16mpx sensor is that it's easy to crop in on something to get the impression that it was shot with a macro lens but generally has better depth of field. Newer cameras have even larger sensors, which means even tighter crops.
 
Here, for example is a quickie shot (uncropped) of a ruler about as close as I could focus:

 
Here's a crop from the same image (slightly out of focus but I wasn't being very careful with it). It was shot at f/8 at 1/110sec.

 
Here's an actual photo from one of my builds. You can see there's a much greater depth of field than would be typical with a macro lens:
 
And another:

 
There's nothing wrong with macro, but it does require a lot more work and a lot more care in using it than just picking up a little point-and-shoot and hand-holding it. Not to mention it can require much more expensive gear and, if you get into focus stacking, much more time.  So I'm just offering this as an alternative. If you already own a digital SLR, before you buy a macro lens, try a wide-angle lens if you have one.  I have a 16mm lens for one of mine and I can achieve similar results with it although it doesn't focus as closely as the P&S camera.
 
Cheers -
John
 

I did not intend to imply that cropping produced a larger, magnified image. Clearly it does not. But one needs to think about the ultimate use for the image. If you're intending to use the image in a book or perhaps a magazine article, then cropping may not be the best course of action. If you're planning to make a 16"x20" color print of a tiny feature on your model to hang on your wall, it certainly won't work. But in reality, most people use images of their models on websites such as MSW, or perhaps, to email to friends. In that case, resolution is a minimal factor.
 
For example, the image of the C-clamp is 800 pixels wide. If printed at 300dpi, it would only be 2.66 inches wide, which might be too small for a book. But posted on the web, it's an entirely acceptable size.  So, I'm only saying consider the intended use for the image in your choice of equipment. Macro photography is a cumbersome and time-consuming type of photography that simply may be unnecessary for the majority of model photos. But, each to his own.
 
Cheers -
John

I did not intend to imply that cropping produced a larger, magnified image. Clearly it does not. But one needs to think about the ultimate use for the image. If you're intending to use the image in a book or perhaps a magazine article, then cropping may not be the best course of action. If you're planning to make a 16"x20" color print of a tiny feature on your model to hang on your wall, it certainly won't work. But in reality, most people use images of their models on websites such as MSW, or perhaps, to email to friends. In that case, resolution is a minimal factor.
 
For example, the image of the C-clamp is 800 pixels wide. If printed at 300dpi, it would only be 2.66 inches wide, which might be too small for a book. But posted on the web, it's an entirely acceptable size.  So, I'm only saying consider the intended use for the image in your choice of equipment. Macro photography is a cumbersome and time-consuming type of photography that simply may be unnecessary for the majority of model photos. But, each to his own.
 
Cheers -
John

I did not intend to imply that cropping produced a larger, magnified image. Clearly it does not. But one needs to think about the ultimate use for the image. If you're intending to use the image in a book or perhaps a magazine article, then cropping may not be the best course of action. If you're planning to make a 16"x20" color print of a tiny feature on your model to hang on your wall, it certainly won't work. But in reality, most people use images of their models on websites such as MSW, or perhaps, to email to friends. In that case, resolution is a minimal factor.
 
For example, the image of the C-clamp is 800 pixels wide. If printed at 300dpi, it would only be 2.66 inches wide, which might be too small for a book. But posted on the web, it's an entirely acceptable size.  So, I'm only saying consider the intended use for the image in your choice of equipment. Macro photography is a cumbersome and time-consuming type of photography that simply may be unnecessary for the majority of model photos. But, each to his own.
 
Cheers -
John

I would offer a somewhat contrarian view and say that macro gear may not be the best solution for close-up model photography. I own a Nikon D800 and three different macro lenses plus a bellows and tripod - altogether some quite expensive equipment. I use none of it for model photography. Instead, I use what would be considered a high-end point-and-shoot (Fuji X100F).  That camera has a fixed focal-length 23mm lens and a 16 megapixel sensor. The camera cost around $1K new but now sells for around $500 used. It has a lot of controls that someone used to a digital SLR would want, which is one of the reasons for it's high cost. But, I can use that camera hand-held, in relatively poor light (it has an f2 lens), and get very good results. It is able to close-focus to just under 4 inches (so-called macro mode) but because of its 23mm lens, it's also useful for taking a shot of a whole boat. I almost never use a tripod - just hand held. The advantage of the 16mpx sensor is that it's easy to crop in on something to get the impression that it was shot with a macro lens but generally has better depth of field. Newer cameras have even larger sensors, which means even tighter crops.
 
Here, for example is a quickie shot (uncropped) of a ruler about as close as I could focus:

 
Here's a crop from the same image (slightly out of focus but I wasn't being very careful with it). It was shot at f/8 at 1/110sec.

 
Here's an actual photo from one of my builds. You can see there's a much greater depth of field than would be typical with a macro lens:
 
And another:

 
There's nothing wrong with macro, but it does require a lot more work and a lot more care in using it than just picking up a little point-and-shoot and hand-holding it. Not to mention it can require much more expensive gear and, if you get into focus stacking, much more time.  So I'm just offering this as an alternative. If you already own a digital SLR, before you buy a macro lens, try a wide-angle lens if you have one.  I have a 16mm lens for one of mine and I can achieve similar results with it although it doesn't focus as closely as the P&S camera.
 
Cheers -
John
 

I would offer a somewhat contrarian view and say that macro gear may not be the best solution for close-up model photography. I own a Nikon D800 and three different macro lenses plus a bellows and tripod - altogether some quite expensive equipment. I use none of it for model photography. Instead, I use what would be considered a high-end point-and-shoot (Fuji X100F).  That camera has a fixed focal-length 23mm lens and a 16 megapixel sensor. The camera cost around $1K new but now sells for around $500 used. It has a lot of controls that someone used to a digital SLR would want, which is one of the reasons for it's high cost. But, I can use that camera hand-held, in relatively poor light (it has an f2 lens), and get very good results. It is able to close-focus to just under 4 inches (so-called macro mode) but because of its 23mm lens, it's also useful for taking a shot of a whole boat. I almost never use a tripod - just hand held. The advantage of the 16mpx sensor is that it's easy to crop in on something to get the impression that it was shot with a macro lens but generally has better depth of field. Newer cameras have even larger sensors, which means even tighter crops.
 
Here, for example is a quickie shot (uncropped) of a ruler about as close as I could focus:

 
Here's a crop from the same image (slightly out of focus but I wasn't being very careful with it). It was shot at f/8 at 1/110sec.

 
Here's an actual photo from one of my builds. You can see there's a much greater depth of field than would be typical with a macro lens:
 
And another:

 
There's nothing wrong with macro, but it does require a lot more work and a lot more care in using it than just picking up a little point-and-shoot and hand-holding it. Not to mention it can require much more expensive gear and, if you get into focus stacking, much more time.  So I'm just offering this as an alternative. If you already own a digital SLR, before you buy a macro lens, try a wide-angle lens if you have one.  I have a 16mm lens for one of mine and I can achieve similar results with it although it doesn't focus as closely as the P&S camera.
 
Cheers -
John
 

I would offer a somewhat contrarian view and say that macro gear may not be the best solution for close-up model photography. I own a Nikon D800 and three different macro lenses plus a bellows and tripod - altogether some quite expensive equipment. I use none of it for model photography. Instead, I use what would be considered a high-end point-and-shoot (Fuji X100F).  That camera has a fixed focal-length 23mm lens and a 16 megapixel sensor. The camera cost around $1K new but now sells for around $500 used. It has a lot of controls that someone used to a digital SLR would want, which is one of the reasons for it's high cost. But, I can use that camera hand-held, in relatively poor light (it has an f2 lens), and get very good results. It is able to close-focus to just under 4 inches (so-called macro mode) but because of its 23mm lens, it's also useful for taking a shot of a whole boat. I almost never use a tripod - just hand held. The advantage of the 16mpx sensor is that it's easy to crop in on something to get the impression that it was shot with a macro lens but generally has better depth of field. Newer cameras have even larger sensors, which means even tighter crops.
 
Here, for example is a quickie shot (uncropped) of a ruler about as close as I could focus:

 
Here's a crop from the same image (slightly out of focus but I wasn't being very careful with it). It was shot at f/8 at 1/110sec.

 
Here's an actual photo from one of my builds. You can see there's a much greater depth of field than would be typical with a macro lens:
 
And another:

 
There's nothing wrong with macro, but it does require a lot more work and a lot more care in using it than just picking up a little point-and-shoot and hand-holding it. Not to mention it can require much more expensive gear and, if you get into focus stacking, much more time.  So I'm just offering this as an alternative. If you already own a digital SLR, before you buy a macro lens, try a wide-angle lens if you have one.  I have a 16mm lens for one of mine and I can achieve similar results with it although it doesn't focus as closely as the P&S camera.
 
Cheers -
John
 

I would offer a somewhat contrarian view and say that macro gear may not be the best solution for close-up model photography. I own a Nikon D800 and three different macro lenses plus a bellows and tripod - altogether some quite expensive equipment. I use none of it for model photography. Instead, I use what would be considered a high-end point-and-shoot (Fuji X100F).  That camera has a fixed focal-length 23mm lens and a 16 megapixel sensor. The camera cost around $1K new but now sells for around $500 used. It has a lot of controls that someone used to a digital SLR would want, which is one of the reasons for it's high cost. But, I can use that camera hand-held, in relatively poor light (it has an f2 lens), and get very good results. It is able to close-focus to just under 4 inches (so-called macro mode) but because of its 23mm lens, it's also useful for taking a shot of a whole boat. I almost never use a tripod - just hand held. The advantage of the 16mpx sensor is that it's easy to crop in on something to get the impression that it was shot with a macro lens but generally has better depth of field. Newer cameras have even larger sensors, which means even tighter crops.
 
Here, for example is a quickie shot (uncropped) of a ruler about as close as I could focus:

 
Here's a crop from the same image (slightly out of focus but I wasn't being very careful with it). It was shot at f/8 at 1/110sec.

 
Here's an actual photo from one of my builds. You can see there's a much greater depth of field than would be typical with a macro lens:
 
And another:

 
There's nothing wrong with macro, but it does require a lot more work and a lot more care in using it than just picking up a little point-and-shoot and hand-holding it. Not to mention it can require much more expensive gear and, if you get into focus stacking, much more time.  So I'm just offering this as an alternative. If you already own a digital SLR, before you buy a macro lens, try a wide-angle lens if you have one.  I have a 16mm lens for one of mine and I can achieve similar results with it although it doesn't focus as closely as the P&S camera.
 
Cheers -
John
 

I would offer a somewhat contrarian view and say that macro gear may not be the best solution for close-up model photography. I own a Nikon D800 and three different macro lenses plus a bellows and tripod - altogether some quite expensive equipment. I use none of it for model photography. Instead, I use what would be considered a high-end point-and-shoot (Fuji X100F).  That camera has a fixed focal-length 23mm lens and a 16 megapixel sensor. The camera cost around $1K new but now sells for around $500 used. It has a lot of controls that someone used to a digital SLR would want, which is one of the reasons for it's high cost. But, I can use that camera hand-held, in relatively poor light (it has an f2 lens), and get very good results. It is able to close-focus to just under 4 inches (so-called macro mode) but because of its 23mm lens, it's also useful for taking a shot of a whole boat. I almost never use a tripod - just hand held. The advantage of the 16mpx sensor is that it's easy to crop in on something to get the impression that it was shot with a macro lens but generally has better depth of field. Newer cameras have even larger sensors, which means even tighter crops.
 
Here, for example is a quickie shot (uncropped) of a ruler about as close as I could focus:

 
Here's a crop from the same image (slightly out of focus but I wasn't being very careful with it). It was shot at f/8 at 1/110sec.

 
Here's an actual photo from one of my builds. You can see there's a much greater depth of field than would be typical with a macro lens:
 
And another:

 
There's nothing wrong with macro, but it does require a lot more work and a lot more care in using it than just picking up a little point-and-shoot and hand-holding it. Not to mention it can require much more expensive gear and, if you get into focus stacking, much more time.  So I'm just offering this as an alternative. If you already own a digital SLR, before you buy a macro lens, try a wide-angle lens if you have one.  I have a 16mm lens for one of mine and I can achieve similar results with it although it doesn't focus as closely as the P&S camera.
 
Cheers -
John
 

Ab Hoving is a member of the forum, so you might want to send him a PM.
https://modelshipworld.com/profile/31631-ab-hoving/
 
Cheers -
John

One advantage to a primer over a clear sanding sealer is that it will show up any defects that need to be repaired before painting the final coats. I always find something that needs to be fixed. On hulls, I usually use something like Rustoleum or Krylon in a rattle can from the hardware store. Of course, it has to be sanded before applying finish coats.
 
Cheers -
John

You're right - my bad. Try Global - https://www.globalindustrial.com/g/metalworking-tools/metalworking-saw-blades/jewelers-saws/Jewelers-Slotting-Saws-1-1-2-Diameter
 

Try Malco - https://www.malcosaw.com/
 
By the way, it's not a good idea to post your email address on the site. You should use PMs if you want a private contact.
 
Cheers -
John

Try Malco - https://www.malcosaw.com/
 
By the way, it's not a good idea to post your email address on the site. You should use PMs if you want a private contact.
 
Cheers -
John

If you look at the picture of the X-Y table on the Micromark site, you'll notice two pan-head Philips screws and washers attached to some nuts down in the T-slot. In the vise that Micromark sells (#15118), there are two slots in the base of the vise. Those screws will go down through the vise base (washers under the screw heads) into the T-nuts and allow you to tighten the vise down to the table. 
 
Although that vise is somewhat lighter than real machinist vises, I think it's adequate for your use because you're just using a Dremel anyway. You're not going to be doing any heavy-duty machining - probably just drilling holes. Although I don't use an X-Y table on my drill press (early Micromark version) I do use that vise for holding things I need to drill and it works just fine.
 
Hope that helps -
John

If you look at the picture of the X-Y table on the Micromark site, you'll notice two pan-head Philips screws and washers attached to some nuts down in the T-slot. In the vise that Micromark sells (#15118), there are two slots in the base of the vise. Those screws will go down through the vise base (washers under the screw heads) into the T-nuts and allow you to tighten the vise down to the table. 
 
Although that vise is somewhat lighter than real machinist vises, I think it's adequate for your use because you're just using a Dremel anyway. You're not going to be doing any heavy-duty machining - probably just drilling holes. Although I don't use an X-Y table on my drill press (early Micromark version) I do use that vise for holding things I need to drill and it works just fine.
 
Hope that helps -
John

I've owned the resistance soldering unit you pictured for a long time. I don't use it for every soldering task, but for things where joints are very close together, it is an ideal solution. The oyster tongs pictured below are made entirely from brass with every joint soldered. I don't think it would be possible to do this with a standard soldering iron because the rods are so close together. It's a shame they are so very expensive, but I don't regret having spent the money.
 
My normal technique for something like this is to use a soft solder like Tix. I'll apply some flux to the joint, then lay a very small piece of solder in the flux. The flux helps to hold the solder next to the joint. The trickiest part is getting the points of the hand piece on the joint without knocking the solder off.  It only takes a second or so for the solder to melt once you press the pedal and it's so quick, the heat is confined to the joint you're working on. Of course, the heavier the material, the longer it takes. The wires on the tongs are .032" so they're quite small.
 
Hope that helps -
John
 

Many years ago, I bought a magnetic gluing jig from Micromark and it has proven to be very useful to me.
 
https://www.micromark.com/Magnetic-Gluing-Jig-10-1-4-Inch-Square