On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 4:30:36 PM UTC-5, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 17/11/16 00:35, wrote:
OK!! EVERYBODY!!
Step back a minute and have a look at what is being discussed he
Sheesh, guys and gals - it is almost as if this were rocket science.

You're responding to Chris' answer to *my* question about how I
can make *my* welder do more than it was designed to. I'm thankful
to him for that, and I don't think he needs to "step back a minute".

No, I made a generic suggestion that we not over-analyze what is, in actuality, a very simple issue. A discussion about cap-reforming has no place in this particular discussion, nor do photo-flash caps except as a perhaps interesting sidebar. A "you might try this if practical" type thing. And at that level, I agree, one might try it.

This discussion, for the OP in any case, is about restoring a piece of industrial equipment back to reliable and optimal function. Emphatically Not rocket science.

Now, here is the issue with industrial tools with the goal of making it 'do more than it was designed to do'. Well designed tools have a level of resilience already built in. Going beyond those parameters puts the tool, operator and surroundings at-risk either a little bit, or perhaps quite a bit depending on the tool. It is, in every case, under every condition, an exceedingly bad idea. If you choose to put yourself and your property at-risk, that is your privilege - and may you never be in line for a Darwin Award.

I have worked in an industrial production environment with very fast, very powerful, very hot machines, materials and moving parts in close proximity. I would NOT want to think that some lashed-up tool operating outside its design parameters had my life or health dependent upon its smooth operation.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA