Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. Thanks, Errol Groff |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:52:56 -0400, Errol Groff
wrote: Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. As long as there's no welding involved, type 303. -- Ned Simmons |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
"Errol Groff" wrote in message ... Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. Thanks, Errol Groff It seems strange that stainless is called for at all. Is there some reason for it, or is it some designer's random idea? Stainless is slightly less stiff than other steels; it's not particularly strong in the likely grades you'd use; it's subject to stress-corrosion cracking; the austenitic (300 series) grades make truly lousy bearing surfaces; it costs more...what in the heck is the reason for it? -- Ed Huntress |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:00:12 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote: On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:52:56 -0400, Errol Groff wrote: Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. As long as there's no welding involved, type 303. Indeed Gunner "Human nature is bad. Good is a human product* A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles." —Sun Tzu * |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
"Errol Groff" wrote in message ... Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. Thanks, Errol Groff If there is no spec for type, use 303. It's like the 12L14 of SS. "303, she's for me. 304, she's a whore." 416 is fair to machine also if you need that series for heat treating, but 303 has been my favorite for machinability. Tom |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
It seems strange that stainless is called for at all. Is there some reason for it, or is it some designer's random idea? Maybe that is what he had on hand? Wes |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:00:12 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote: On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:52:56 -0400, Errol Groff wrote: Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. As long as there's no welding involved, type 303. Thanks guys. I will look at the plans tomorrow to see if they hint at why S.S. is called for. My bet is that it is what the original guy had on hand. Errol |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
Wes wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:
"Ed Huntress" wrote: It seems strange that stainless is called for at all. Is there some reason for it, or is it some designer's random idea? Maybe that is what he had on hand? Wes More likely is the probability that the designer intended that the builder gain experience with machining different metals. |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
Errol sez: "I will look at the plans tomorrow to see if they hint at
why S.S. is called for. My bet is that it is what the original guy had on hand." I'd almost bet on that. There couldn't be any strength considerations in engines of that small size. Bob Swinney "Errol Groff" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:00:12 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote: On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:52:56 -0400, Errol Groff wrote: Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. As long as there's no welding involved, type 303. Thanks guys. Errol |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
Connecting rods ? been a while since I looked at an engine -
I have one to make myself. It might be they have to push through bushings and can't get pitted or rusty. I didn't see a spec on a lot of mine - the body was cast Iron but one only knows what the various rods and axles are. Martin Ed Huntress wrote: "Errol Groff" wrote in message ... Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. Thanks, Errol Groff It seems strange that stainless is called for at all. Is there some reason for it, or is it some designer's random idea? Stainless is slightly less stiff than other steels; it's not particularly strong in the likely grades you'd use; it's subject to stress-corrosion cracking; the austenitic (300 series) grades make truly lousy bearing surfaces; it costs more...what in the heck is the reason for it? -- Ed Huntress |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
Ned Simmons wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:52:56 -0400, Errol Groff wrote: Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. As long as there's no welding involved, type 303. Why no welding? Never had a problem tigging 303. cheers T.Alan |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
303
Steve "Errol Groff" wrote in message ... Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. Thanks, Errol Groff |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:10:40 -0700, "T.Alan Kraus"
wrote: Ned Simmons wrote: As long as there's no welding involved, type 303. Why no welding? Never had a problem tigging 303. I've tigged a lot of 303 as well, but it's not recommended. The sulfur that's added to improve machinability interferes with welding. I used to fabricate SS marine hardware for a living and when I was welding every day I could tell the difference between 303 and 304/316 by the way the weld puddle behaved. -- Ned Simmons |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:16:03 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Errol Groff" wrote in message ... Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. Thanks, Errol Groff It seems strange that stainless is called for at all. Is there some reason for it, or is it some designer's random idea? Stainless is slightly less stiff than other steels; it's not particularly strong in the likely grades you'd use; it's subject to stress-corrosion cracking; the austenitic (300 series) grades make truly lousy bearing surfaces; it costs more...what in the heck is the reason for it? Being cynical, I would guess that the original designer called it out "'cause it's purty when it's all shined up nice". Or he had it on hand, or he had strange notions about SS, or he wanted to learn how to machine it, etc. -- http://www.wescottdesign.com |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:52:56 -0400, Errol Groff wrote:
Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. Thanks, Errol Groff My inclination would be to use 12L14, and tell anyone who listened that it's very low grade stainless. It'll be easier to machine, just as strong, and it'll look a heck of a lot more authentic in an engine. Unless, of course, the whole point of the project is to build a Really Shiny hit-and-miss engine, of course, in which case it's fair for appearance to take precedence over sensibility. -- http://www.wescottdesign.com |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
Ned Simmons wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:10:40 -0700, "T.Alan Kraus" wrote: Ned Simmons wrote: As long as there's no welding involved, type 303. Why no welding? Never had a problem tigging 303. I've tigged a lot of 303 as well, but it's not recommended. The sulfur that's added to improve machinability interferes with welding. I used to fabricate SS marine hardware for a living and when I was welding every day I could tell the difference between 303 and 304/316 by the way the weld puddle behaved. I have found that a meticulous cleaning and almost polishing before welding makes a beneficial difference in the weld puddle and finished appearance. cheers T.Alan |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
"Tim Wescott" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:16:03 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: "Errol Groff" wrote in message ... Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. Thanks, Errol Groff It seems strange that stainless is called for at all. Is there some reason for it, or is it some designer's random idea? Stainless is slightly less stiff than other steels; it's not particularly strong in the likely grades you'd use; it's subject to stress-corrosion cracking; the austenitic (300 series) grades make truly lousy bearing surfaces; it costs more...what in the heck is the reason for it? Being cynical, I would guess that the original designer called it out "'cause it's purty when it's all shined up nice". Or he had it on hand, or he had strange notions about SS, or he wanted to learn how to machine it, etc. -- http://www.wescottdesign.com Yeah, we had the same thought. If it's an exposed crank and con rod, maybe it looks flashy when it's running. g It's unlikely that the con rod in a hit-and-miss engine is very highly stressed. You probably could use just about any metal. -- Ed Huntress |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
What S.S. to use?
On Mar 23, 11:00*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Tim Wescott" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:16:03 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: "Errol Groff" wrote in message . .. Two of my students are building model hit and miss engines. *The drawing calls for stainless steel for the connecting rods but does not specify what grade. The part will be made from .4375 diameter rod stock. Suggestions please on what grade to use keeping in mind that they have no experience with S.S. so machinability is important. *Will probably order the stock from Mc Master Carr and they list a bewildering variety of grades. Thanks, Errol Groff It seems strange that stainless is called for at all. Is there some reason for it, or is it some designer's random idea? Stainless is slightly less stiff than other steels; it's not particularly strong in the likely grades you'd use; it's subject to stress-corrosion cracking; the austenitic (300 series) grades make truly lousy bearing surfaces; it costs more...what in the heck is the reason for it? Being cynical, I would guess that the original designer called it out "'cause it's purty when it's all shined up nice". Or he had it on hand, or he had strange notions about SS, or he wanted to learn how to machine it, etc. -- http://www.wescottdesign.com Yeah, we had the same thought. If it's an exposed crank and con rod, maybe it looks flashy when it's running. g It's unlikely that the con rod in a hit-and-miss engine is very highly stressed. You probably could use just about any metal. -- Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Having gotten burned a bunch of times reverse engineering stuff; the only way to be sure is build it out of 12L14 and find out if there is a reason for SS.:-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|