Oleg Lego wrote:
The Robert Bonomi entity posted thusly:

Would you believe "Carbon tetra-chloride"?

It _does_ extinguish fires. But the gas it givesoff is rather dangerous.

Minor trivia:
Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".

Actually it was the mercury that they used in hatmaking that affected
them.

On Fri 20 Jan 2006 04:21:58p, "R.H." wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...
543: Seems like long ago an old timer pointed to one of those and
said it was a fencing tool. You looped the wire on one of the teeth
and levered it against whatever was handy to tighten the wire, and
you hammered staples with the hammerhead.

Sounds reasonable, though this tool doesn't look like it would be very
comfortable to hold with a bare hand.

That was my exact thought too. But there's that hammerhead right there,
and if one assumes it's used the way one would normally use a hammer,
then there's either a part missing that would cover up all those teeth,
or people just put up with a lot of discomfort back then.

Or maybe both. :-)

them and if you want I can post the one or two that actually have
something to see on ABPW later this evening. I believe there's one
where you can clearly see this part as one piece of a one-man
bucksaw.

Yes, please post them, I just did a google search on bucksaws and
didn't see anything like #447, so I'd be interested to see your
photos.

Done. The subject is "One-man bucksaw - 3 attachments"
but it looks like I'm not a very good usenet user either. One of the
attachments didn't make it. Don't know why, I treated just like the
others with PaintShop Pro to resize it, but two of them made it and one
of them came through as gibberish text. Maybe I ought to send them just
one at a time.

If you want the third one I'll repost it but I think you can get the idea
from the two that made it. Let me know if you want me to try again.

Dan

[1]Or maybe a "splasher?" ;-) It's held by a band of low-melting alloy,
which when it melts, drops the globe on whatever's under it...


As seen on the answer page, the word automatic is on the wall bracket that
holds it, so maybe that's a reference to the low melting alloy.

Rob

Done. The subject is "One-man bucksaw - 3 attachments"
but it looks like I'm not a very good usenet user either. One of the
attachments didn't make it. Don't know why, I treated just like the
others with PaintShop Pro to resize it, but two of them made it and one
of them came through as gibberish text. Maybe I ought to send them just
one at a time.

If you want the third one I'll repost it but I think you can get the idea
from the two that made it. Let me know if you want me to try again.

Dan

Where did you post them? I scanned the three groups that this thread is in
but didn't see a post with your subject line, maybe I just missed it.

Rob

"Alexander Thesoso" wrote in message
news:LrUzf.2186$Iw3.1823@trndny06...
I have a guess at 244.

It is a weight from a chain from a WWII D-Day Flail tank.

See the picture on the right near the bottom of:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_dday/clues.html

The front of the tank had a rotating cylinder with 6-ft. chains attached.
The chain had fist-sized weights hung on it. The flailing chains
detonated
mines.

Interesting idea, I'll have to see if I can find a close-up of the weights
that they use for those.

Rob

#564 is a Stearns saw set, possibly 103 or 104 model.

Tom

I couldn't find a model number on it, just the company name and location,
nor could I find any similar looking ones on the web or in my tool books.


Rob

518 looks very much like a foundry worker's "floor rammer".

Tom


Yes, I think that it's some type of rammer/tamper, probably for sand but I
included it because I couldn't find another one like it to confirm its use.


Rob

In article ,
Oleg Lego wrote:
The Robert Bonomi entity posted thusly:

Would you believe "Carbon tetra-chloride"?

It _does_ extinguish fires. But the gas it givesoff is rather dangerous.

Minor trivia:
Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".


Sorry, but that's not quite correct.

The other 'common' use for carbon-tet was as a dry-cleaning fluid.

Hat-making used mercury in the making of the 'felt' from which many
types of hats are formed. (ranging from Stetsons, to Derbys.

Hatmakers _chewed_ (literally, as in 'masticated') the source
material, to soften it, prior to forming into final shapes.

The long-term effects of ingestion of low levels of mercury in
that work, did give rise to various forms of insanity.


The long-term effects of ingestion of low levels of mercury in
that work, did give rise to various forms of insanity.

567) Military style ammo belt. Each pocket would hold a stripper
clip full of rifle rounds.

It looks as though it is intended to be only part of a complete
set. Perhaps it joins to another, or perhaps to a knapsack.



I was wondering why three of the pockets have four small air holes on the
back while the other two do not.



244) It looks as though it is intended to be assembled around a
leather strap, and then hung from something. Perhaps part of
the harness for a team of oxen?


I think you may be right about it being attached to a leather strap, or
possibly a rope as someone else mentioned, the metal is partly smooth on the
inside from wear. Or it could have clamped on to a piece of metal on a
scale. Someone from a weight and scale collector web site said that it was
an ice weight, but I couldn't find anything about it to confirm this, nor
would he elaborate when asked.



76) Perhaps it goes on the bottom end of a wooden tripod leg,
such as for a surveyor's tripod?

I'm leaning toward tripod leg on this one too, but for what I don't know.


186) I don't remember seeing this one before. I would like a closer
look at the jaws. Perhaps it is a punch for making holes in
leather belts? I'm not sure what the pivoting part is for --
other than to keep it a fixed distance off the floor, or to
clamp in a vise to free both hands to thread the leather into
position and then operate the handles to punch the hole?

Tomorrow I'll post a closer shot of the jaws.

212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.

Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?

I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.

Also tomorrow I'll measure this one, I don't have it with me here.


Rob

According to R.H. :


Done. The subject is "One-man bucksaw - 3 attachments"
but it looks like I'm not a very good usenet user either. One of the
attachments didn't make it. Don't know why, I treated just like the
others with PaintShop Pro to resize it, but two of them made it and one
of them came through as gibberish text. Maybe I ought to send them just
one at a time.

If you want the third one I'll repost it but I think you can get the idea
from the two that made it. Let me know if you want me to try again.

Dan

Where did you post them? I scanned the three groups that this thread is in
but didn't see a post with your subject line, maybe I just missed it.

A growing number of news servers reject articles with binary
attachments in non-binary newsgroups. The solution is to put the image
on a web site (the dropbox, if you don't have one of your own), and just
post the URL for it to the newsgroup.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Sat 21 Jan 2006 04:25:43p, "R.H." wrote in
:
Where did you post them? I scanned the three groups that this thread
is in but didn't see a post with your subject line, maybe I just
missed it.


Ack. Sorry Rob. ABPW is
alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking

If you can't get to that one, we'll have to work something out. As far as I
know, Google doesn't carry any of the binary groups so if that's all you
can use, we'll have to work on it.

Dan

According to R.H. :
567) Military style ammo belt. Each pocket would hold a stripper
clip full of rifle rounds.

It looks as though it is intended to be only part of a complete
set. Perhaps it joins to another, or perhaps to a knapsack.



I was wondering why three of the pockets have four small air holes on the
back while the other two do not.

I think that those are intended (two at a time) to match hooks
in the end of the other half of the ammo belt, to adjust it to the
wearer. That end would thread through the rectangular guide on the
right-hand end (your back view), and plug into a pair of holes to set
the length. Are there reinforcing rings in those holes?


244) It looks as though it is intended to be assembled around a
leather strap, and then hung from something. Perhaps part of
the harness for a team of oxen?


I think you may be right about it being attached to a leather strap, or
possibly a rope as someone else mentioned, the metal is partly smooth on the
inside from wear. Or it could have clamped on to a piece of metal on a
scale. Someone from a weight and scale collector web site said that it was
an ice weight, but I couldn't find anything about it to confirm this, nor
would he elaborate when asked.

Interesting.

76) Perhaps it goes on the bottom end of a wooden tripod leg,
such as for a surveyor's tripod?

I'm leaning toward tripod leg on this one too, but for what I don't know.

Part of my reason for suspecting this is the angled foot, which
would be level when the legs of a tripod were properly spread.

186) I don't remember seeing this one before. I would like a closer
look at the jaws. Perhaps it is a punch for making holes in
leather belts? I'm not sure what the pivoting part is for --
other than to keep it a fixed distance off the floor, or to
clamp in a vise to free both hands to thread the leather into
position and then operate the handles to punch the hole?

Tomorrow I'll post a closer shot of the jaws.

O.K. Thanks.

212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.

Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?

I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.

Also tomorrow I'll measure this one, I don't have it with me here.

O.K. Thanks again.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Ack. Sorry Rob. ABPW is
alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking

If you can't get to that one, we'll have to work something out. As far as
I
know, Google doesn't carry any of the binary groups so if that's all you
can use, we'll have to work on it.

Dan

Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same piece of
hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my site.

Rob

On Sat 21 Jan 2006 07:20:56p, "R.H." wrote in
:

Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same
piece of hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my
site.

Rob

Oh sure. I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in the public
domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.

Dan

Dan wrote:
On Sat 21 Jan 2006 07:20:56p, "R.H." wrote in
:
Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same
piece of hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my
site.

Oh sure. I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in the public
domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.

Nope, it most definitely doesn't put them in the public domain! People
tend to act like it does sometimes, but that's only the "they won't find
out so they won't sue me" sort of public domain.

(Well, sometimes it's more the "they probably don't mind, so they won't
sue me" sort of public domain, as in this case, I suppose.)

- Brooks


--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.

I think that those are intended (two at a time) to match hooks
in the end of the other half of the ammo belt, to adjust it to the
wearer. That end would thread through the rectangular guide on the
right-hand end (your back view), and plug into a pair of holes to set
the length. Are there reinforcing rings in those holes?


The holes along the top and bottom of the ammo belt are larger and have
reinforcing rings, the smaller holes aren't reinforced.



244) It looks as though it is intended to be assembled around a
leather strap, and then hung from something. Perhaps part of
the harness for a team of oxen?


I think you may be right about it being attached to a leather strap, or
possibly a rope as someone else mentioned, the metal is partly smooth on
the
inside from wear. Or it could have clamped on to a piece of metal on a
scale. Someone from a weight and scale collector web site said that it
was
an ice weight, but I couldn't find anything about it to confirm this,
nor
would he elaborate when asked.

Here is a photo showing the wear on the upper piece of this weight, the slot
is wider at the opening and tapers a bit narrower so the wear is more
prominent about 1/4" from the edge.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...03/pic244d.jpg



186) I don't remember seeing this one before. I would like a closer
look at the jaws. Perhaps it is a punch for making holes in
leather belts? I'm not sure what the pivoting part is for --
other than to keep it a fixed distance off the floor, or to
clamp in a vise to free both hands to thread the leather into
position and then operate the handles to punch the hole?

A closer shot of the jaws:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...03/pic186c.jpg

One possibility for this tool is that it could be a miter clamp, as seen in
this photo:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...03/pic186d.jpg

----

I'll measure that other tool later today.


Rob

212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.

Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?

It's not tapered, though it does look like it is in the photo.

I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.

Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
it in the unsolved set.


Rob

According to Brooks Moses :
Dan wrote:
On Sat 21 Jan 2006 07:20:56p, "R.H." wrote in
:
Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same
piece of hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my
site.

Oh sure. I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in the public
domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.

Nope, it most definitely doesn't put them in the public domain! People
tend to act like it does sometimes, but that's only the "they won't find
out so they won't sue me" sort of public domain.

(Well, sometimes it's more the "they probably don't mind, so they won't
sue me" sort of public domain, as in this case, I suppose.)

Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.

However -- if you *don't* own the rights, that is a different
matter. It is copyright infringement in aid of more copyright
infringement. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Dan:
I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in the public
domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.

Brooks Moses:
Nope, it most definitely doesn't put them in the public domain! People
tend to act like it does sometimes, but that's only the "they won't find
out so they won't sue me" sort of public domain.

(Well, sometimes it's more the "they probably don't mind, so they won't
sue me" sort of public domain, as in this case, I suppose.)

Don Nichols:
Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.

No, sorry, Brooks has it right. If you want to put something in the
public domain, you have to do it explicitly, as below.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"
| -- Lord Kelvin

My text in this article is in the public domain.

According to R.H. :

I think that those are intended (two at a time) to match hooks
in the end of the other half of the ammo belt, to adjust it to the
wearer. That end would thread through the rectangular guide on the
right-hand end (your back view), and plug into a pair of holes to set
the length. Are there reinforcing rings in those holes?


The holes along the top and bottom of the ammo belt are larger and have
reinforcing rings, the smaller holes aren't reinforced.

Yes -- those larger holes are to prevent tear-out of the loaded
pockets. the others don't really *need* reenforcing rings, though they
*might* have had some. In any case -- the holes are to allow joining to
the other half of the ammo belt, and to adjust for the wearer's size
(and for the number of layers of warm clothing he may be wearing as
well. :-)



244) It looks as though it is intended to be assembled around a
leather strap, and then hung from something. Perhaps part of
the harness for a team of oxen?


I think you may be right about it being attached to a leather strap, or
possibly a rope as someone else mentioned, the metal is partly smooth on
the
inside from wear.

That looks like an intentional smoothing, not wear -- and it is
for a strap, not a rope (though the strap *could* be canvas instead of
leather). If it were wear from a rope, it would form two grooves on
either side of the screw which secures the two halves together.

Or it could have clamped on to a piece of metal on a
scale. Someone from a weight and scale collector web site said that it
was
an ice weight, but I couldn't find anything about it to confirm this,
nor
would he elaborate when asked.

Here is a photo showing the wear on the upper piece of this weight, the slot
is wider at the opening and tapers a bit narrower so the wear is more
prominent about 1/4" from the edge.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...03/pic244d.jpg

Yes -- I think that this is not wear, but intentional grinding
to allow some flexing of the strap enclosed.

186) I don't remember seeing this one before. I would like a closer
look at the jaws. Perhaps it is a punch for making holes in
leather belts? I'm not sure what the pivoting part is for --
other than to keep it a fixed distance off the floor, or to
clamp in a vise to free both hands to thread the leather into
position and then operate the handles to punch the hole?

A closer shot of the jaws:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...03/pic186c.jpg

O.K. Not a punch, based on those shots.

One possibility for this tool is that it could be a miter clamp, as seen in
this photo:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...03/pic186d.jpg

That looks like a proper function for it. And the pivoting of
the separate piece would allow it to deal with two pieces of wood of
different width.

I'll measure that other tool later today.

O.K.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

According to R.H. :

212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.

Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?

It's not tapered, though it does look like it is in the photo.

I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.

Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
it in the unsolved set.

O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
looks to be surface ground to dimension.

Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article s.com,
DoN. Nichols wrote:

Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.

Wrong. You automatically own copyright to any original work you produce
unless you explicitly put that work into th epublic domain.

--
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof.
And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." - Former Canadian
Prime Minister Jean Chretien

The Robert Bonomi entity posted thusly:

In article ,
Oleg Lego wrote:
Minor trivia:
Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".

Sorry, but that's not quite correct.

The other 'common' use for carbon-tet was as a dry-cleaning fluid.

Hat-making used mercury in the making of the 'felt' from which many
types of hats are formed. (ranging from Stetsons, to Derbys.

Hatmakers _chewed_ (literally, as in 'masticated') the source
material, to soften it, prior to forming into final shapes.

The long-term effects of ingestion of low levels of mercury in
that work, did give rise to various forms of insanity.


The long-term effects of ingestion of low levels of mercury in
that work, did give rise to various forms of insanity.

I stand corrected. Serves me right for taking the word of someone who
told me that many years ago, without checking on it myself.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article s.com,
DoN. Nichols wrote:


Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.


Wrong. You automatically own copyright to any original work you produce
unless you explicitly put that work into th epublic domain.


True but proving it is yours is a little
difficult. One way is to slightly crop any photo
that is sent out. Only you will have the
uncropped part that fits. Also, your case will be
supported if you warn others that the photo is
copyrighted. You do that by putting a copyright
mark (c in a circle) then the year and your name.

All of which is useless, because as an individual
you will not likely have the money to pursue a
court case and obtain money damages.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

According to R.H. :

212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.

Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?

It's not tapered, though it does look like it is in the photo.

I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.

Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
it in the unsolved set.

O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
looks to be surface ground to dimension.

Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?

Enjoy,
DoN.

DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
(in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
do such things?

Barb

Barbara Bailey wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:
According to R.H. :
Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
it in the unsolved set.

O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
looks to be surface ground to dimension.

Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?

DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
(in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
do such things?

It seems possible, I suppose, but it also seems remarkably simple for
such a thing. In the simplistic shop class I took in college, our
"masterpieces" had gear teeth and threads and suchlike on them, and I'd
imagine a real machinist would have something at least as complex.

(They were really more for giving us experience with the various tools
than for illustrating mastery, though.)

- Brooks


--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:44:16 -0800, Brooks Moses
wrote:

Barbara Bailey wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:
According to R.H. :
Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
it in the unsolved set.

O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
looks to be surface ground to dimension.

Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?

DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
(in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
do such things?

It seems possible, I suppose, but it also seems remarkably simple for
such a thing. In the simplistic shop class I took in college, our
"masterpieces" had gear teeth and threads and suchlike on them, and I'd
imagine a real machinist would have something at least as complex.

(They were really more for giving us experience with the various tools
than for illustrating mastery, though.)

- Brooks

The reason I asked is that my husband has mentioned that when he was
apprenticing at a machinist's, he had to make a 1" cube to some
incredibly fine tolerence before he was allowed to move on to the next
step. So, not a final masterpiece really, but a 'proof of competence
in this aspect' piece?

According to Barbara Bailey :
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:44:16 -0800, Brooks Moses
wrote:

Barbara Bailey wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

[ ... ]

O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
looks to be surface ground to dimension.

Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?

DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
(in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
do such things?

As others have answered -- I don't think so. That is designed
for use, not show, and the turned section is intended as a handle to get
it to where it would be used.

It seems possible, I suppose, but it also seems remarkably simple for
such a thing. In the simplistic shop class I took in college, our
"masterpieces" had gear teeth and threads and suchlike on them, and I'd
imagine a real machinist would have something at least as complex.

(They were really more for giving us experience with the various tools
than for illustrating mastery, though.)

- Brooks

The reason I asked is that my husband has mentioned that when he was
apprenticing at a machinist's, he had to make a 1" cube to some
incredibly fine tolerence before he was allowed to move on to the next
step. So, not a final masterpiece really, but a 'proof of competence
in this aspect' piece?

IIRC, (though I have never been an apprentice), the cube had to
be made by filing to fit a square hole -- and it had to be a precise fit
though it in all orientations. I forget whether the apprentice's master
would supply the square hole, or whether the apprentice had to make that
as well.

This item looks to have been made slightly oversized, stamped on
the end to mark it, hardened, and surface ground to final dimensions.

Is your husband still with us? If so, perhaps you could ask his
opinion on the matter.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:10:03 +0000, (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

According to Barbara Bailey :
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:44:16 -0800, Brooks Moses
wrote:

Barbara Bailey wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

[ ... ]

O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
looks to be surface ground to dimension.

Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?

DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
(in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
do such things?

As others have answered -- I don't think so. That is designed
for use, not show, and the turned section is intended as a handle to get
it to where it would be used.

It seems possible, I suppose, but it also seems remarkably simple for
such a thing. In the simplistic shop class I took in college, our
"masterpieces" had gear teeth and threads and suchlike on them, and I'd
imagine a real machinist would have something at least as complex.

(They were really more for giving us experience with the various tools
than for illustrating mastery, though.)

- Brooks

The reason I asked is that my husband has mentioned that when he was
apprenticing at a machinist's, he had to make a 1" cube to some
incredibly fine tolerence before he was allowed to move on to the next
step. So, not a final masterpiece really, but a 'proof of competence
in this aspect' piece?

IIRC, (though I have never been an apprentice), the cube had to
be made by filing to fit a square hole -- and it had to be a precise fit
though it in all orientations. I forget whether the apprentice's master
would supply the square hole, or whether the apprentice had to make that
as well.

This item looks to have been made slightly oversized, stamped on
the end to mark it, hardened, and surface ground to final dimensions.

Is your husband still with us? If so, perhaps you could ask his
opinion on the matter.

Enjoy,
DoN.

He is, but he has no clue on the mysterious whatzit. He didn't make
it much past the 1" cube test--he's got poison hands, and this was
long before latex gloves were readily available. Ah, well, it was a
thought...

According to Barbara Bailey :
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:10:03 +0000, (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

[ ... ]

Is your husband still with us? If so, perhaps you could ask his
opinion on the matter.

[ ... ]

He is, but he has no clue on the mysterious whatzit. He didn't make
it much past the 1" cube test--he's got poison hands,

Aha! A "ruster". That is an awkward condition for a machinist.

and this was
long before latex gloves were readily available.

There is also a special soap -- used by the Swiss watchmakers --
to neutralize the hands. It is probably too expensive for general
machining work. Easier to give him a different job.

Ah, well, it was a
thought...

Thanks for the suggestions
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Speaking of spoken, I have a couple and I know a man with a huge garage
full.

In article s.com,
DoN. Nichols wrote:
According to Brooks Moses :
Dan wrote:
On Sat 21 Jan 2006 07:20:56p, "R.H." wrote in
:
Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same
piece of hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my
site.

Oh sure. I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in
the public
domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.

Nope, it most definitely doesn't put them in the public domain! People
tend to act like it does sometimes, but that's only the "they won't find
out so they won't sue me" sort of public domain.

(Well, sometimes it's more the "they probably don't mind, so they won't
sue me" sort of public domain, as in this case, I suppose.)

Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.

FALSE TO FACT. 'once upon a time', (in the U.S.) it was true that if
you 'published' something *without* a copyright claim attached, that the
item was then in the public domain. Since the U.S adopted the "Berne
Convention", and modified it's copyright laws accordingly (in the 1980's),
this is no longer the case.

Copyright protection attaches *automatically*, with no need to ever
include any notice of such. If you don't _know_ the item is in the
public domain -- i.e. you have a disclaimer from the author to that
effect -- you are well-advised to proceed on the basis that there *is*
copyright on the work involved.


However -- if you *don't* own the rights, that is a different
matter. It is copyright infringement in aid of more copyright
infringement. :-)

O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
looks to be surface ground to dimension.

Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?


I was planning to use the micrometer at work today but it wasn't available,
I should be able to use it in a day or two. There are no markings on it
other than on the visible end. One more thing about it that I don't think
that I mentioned before, it's made from a single piece of metal.

Rob

I swear by all Woodworking Gods, I will never, ever, post another article
on this newsgroup which contains the words "copyright" or "public domain".

"R.H." wrote:

Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
them so I've included them in this new post.

http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/

Rob

566 Does it have a hole for a screw? I think it goes on the
handle end of a walking stick in case you want to use the handle
end as a weapon.

567 looks like the right half of an old rifle belt. The missing
left half would provice adjustment and hang other items, possibly a
bayonet and canteen.

436 looks like a device to test the hardness of a material of a
certain thickness. You raise a rod until the weight hits the top,
slide the material under the point, and drop the rod.

76 looks like a hummingbird nest to go in the stakehole of a pickup truck.

383 looks like a hammer for driving tacks in positions where a
regular hammer could not be swung.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:57:31 -0500, Sawney Beane
wrote:

"R.H." wrote:

Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
them so I've included them in this new post.

http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/

Rob

566 Does it have a hole for a screw? I think it goes on the
handle end of a walking stick in case you want to use the handle
end as a weapon.

My husband suggested that this might be the handle of a fancy riding
crop or swagger-stick, rather than a cane. If the total length is 3.25
inches, then the opening for the shaft at the hand is just a hair
under 1/2 an inch (unless, of couse I've completely bobbled my
math...) That seems awfully thin for a cane, but just about right for
the butt end of a crop.

Barb

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:37:42 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote:
According to Tim Shoppa :
....
As enigmatic as Gary Larson's "Cow Tools" :-).

http://www.salon.com/people/portfoli...on/older4.html

I like that one.

I don't get it. )-;

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:23:39 +0000, Dan wrote:
On Fri 20 Jan 2006 04:21:58p, "R.H." wrote in
wrote in message
543: Seems like long ago an old timer pointed to one of those and
said it was a fencing tool. You looped the wire on one of the teeth
and levered it against whatever was handy to tighten the wire, and
you hammered staples with the hammerhead.

Sounds reasonable, though this tool doesn't look like it would be very
comfortable to hold with a bare hand.

That was my exact thought too. But there's that hammerhead right there,
and if one assumes it's used the way one would normally use a hammer,
then there's either a part missing that would cover up all those teeth,
or people just put up with a lot of discomfort back then.

Or maybe both. :-)

It wouldn't make much of a hammer with that swivel. I'm guessing that the
pointy part gets pounded into a post - i.e., you whack what looks like the
hammerhead, poke the point in, and you have kind of a swivel, which maybe
then you'd loop your fence wire over what looks like teeth, and pick a
tooth based on what kind of mechanical advantage you want as you tighten
the fence wire.

Well, that's my guess. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:22:46 +0000, Dan wrote:

On Sat 21 Jan 2006 04:25:43p, "R.H." wrote in
:
Where did you post them? I scanned the three groups that this thread
is in but didn't see a post with your subject line, maybe I just
missed it.


Ack. Sorry Rob. ABPW is
alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking

If you can't get to that one, we'll have to work something out. As far as I
know, Google doesn't carry any of the binary groups so if that's all you
can use, we'll have to work on it.

Dan

I see all three pictures on my server, although the first one is a little
underexposed.

Cheers!
Rich

O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
looks to be surface ground to dimension.


Turns out that it's not real close to 15/16" (.9375), I used two different
micrometers, the digital one read .924 and the mechanical one .917. So it's
closer to 59/64, which is .921875, I'm guessing that it's still most likely
a gauge for checking some work.


Rob