Michael,

Very nice I am sure and a fantastic piece of kit but I am with John on this one and such an instrument for what I do has no place in my shed lol.

Building a half size version of an early 1900's traction engine and following the prototype where limits and fits were to the closest 5 thou or 1/16" on the cast gears I have no need or desire to work to the tolerances capable of being measured by this!

A common mistake by new builders of steam engines is to make everything to too close a fit and consequently they are so tight they won't run! I have a 5" gauge loco built by an early mentor of mine now long sadly gone which is now 58 years old, on its 3rd boiler and has done 1000's of real miles over the years giving rides on a portable track. Apart from the boiler replacements it has had one set of piston valves and a couple of bushes in the motion to my knowledge and that's it. Yes it clanks and bangs a bit (as does a full size if you get the chance to ride one) but it still goes like the proverbial rocket and I consider it now properly run in. Everything on it was measured with an old manual Moore and Wright vernier and I think it's service record shows that was plenty good enough.

Dont get me wrong, as a time served fitter turner I can make things fit adequately for purpose but I am not going to spend time working to limits that are not required for a decent practical end result. Half a thou is as small as I practically need to measure.

Paul.

Would it not be displaying 242,107 if it were reading in Nanometers, as I see it the display is in microns to 3 decimal places

I suppose you have to be careful how much you move x, y & z as you could soon heat up the machine and all the callibration would go to pot with the heat from the motors that move the axis.

I suppose it all depends on what you are doing. In my day job, before retiring, I would regularly measure the thickness of thin films to plus or minus a couple of nanometres. I needed this degree of precision to make sure that the films were fit for purpose.

As far as model engineering is concerned 0.5 thou is as good as it gets as far as I am concerned. For most jobs, a couple of thou would be nearer the truth! Horses for courses.

Andrew.

Sorry I have just sneezed and it seems to have jumped out of tolerance and floated out into the garden.

David.

Hi, I think the point is that it has a resolution of 1 nanometre. That's 10000 times better than my Lab scales that have a resolution of 10 micrograms and I've just weighed a piece of Brass swarf about half the size of a pin head and it came to 5.5 mg, or 5500 nanograms if you like.

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 05/07/2019 10:25:38

Horses for courses!

If that level of precision / resolution is necessary, suitable equipment can be supplied / made. BUT at a price, and in an environment which is controlled equally closely, and expensively.

In our non temperature and humidity controlled workshops, working with our "commercial" tools, machines and measuring equipment, John was correct. We can get micron fits, by lapping, perhaps, but not accurately measureable, or repeatable, in most cases.

Working to tighter than necessary tolerances adds cost but little benefit.

The Great Western Railway worked to much closer tolerances than any other UK mainline railway. Their loocos outperformed others in term of economy and durability for many years. But one of the rebuilds of King George V , in preservation, was too precise, and ran a hot box soon after leaving Paddington on an excursion train.

The fit needs to suit the application and its environment.

It was said that in the development of the atom bomb, a naval gun was to be used to bring the uranium plugs together almost instantaneously to exceed the critical mass. A naval gunnery expert criticised the process, as the muzzle velocity would be so high that the barrel would only survive two firings. He was unaware that after the first, it would have been vapourised!

Howard

As we know the first successful Atom Bomb was made in the USA. It's 'quite interesting' to look at what everyone else was doing in the early years. HG Wells' 1913 novel 'The World Set Free' described Atom Bombs 30 years before any understanding of how to make one. The first patent for an Atom Bomb is owned by the British Admiralty, and the first determined build project was a joint Canadian/British endeavour (Tube Alloys) . At about the same time, the military possibilities were being looked at more-or-less seriously in at least Italy, Germany, France, the USA, and Japan. Obvious to all that development was going to be very expensive.

The story is that the physicist seeking massive funding from the Japanese War Ministry explained to a non-technical Colonel that a lump of metal about the size of a hand-grenade would destroy an entire city. Funding refused because the Colonel couldn't see any advantage in soldiers throwing hand-grenades that powerful…

Dave

Mike You forgot dressmaking

Roy 

Edited By roy entwistle on 05/07/2019 11:46:53

I am unable to vouch for that as when I got it out of the envelope David sent it to me in I dropped it onto the large box of 567BA machine screws I was slitting the heads of in the 3 jaw of my Drummond Roundbed lathe.

More seriously Drummonds proudly advertised that their Roundbed lathe beds were ground to a tolerance of 1/1000" so what does that suggest the tolerance of parts made on them would be in reality? 10x that??

Also John Stevenson in another forum a few years ago noted that the latest Myford connoisseur lathe bed was ground on the same surface grinder as his 40 year old one!

I'm with what John S wrote on this subject I'm afraid, silly tolerances are not necessary for our hobby – but as it IS a hobby, if you get pleasure from working to them, you are doing exactly what is right for you.

Nick

PS As someone diagnosed with autism late in life, if you say you have to work to them I can see where you are with that as well

Edited By Nick Clarke 3 on 05/07/2019 12:58:10