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 |
#41
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... On May 20, 8:13 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... Yes! From decades of self-teaching, I can suggest my own solution: two or three books, written by different authors, that explain the same thing in different ways. ... Ed Huntress I've found that I need an intuitive explanation first to provide a framework to file away the subsequent formulaic ones, which killed me when I got to Laplace Transforms. Aha. Yes, I have some of that affliction too. I grow impatient with purely abstract explanations until I have a picture in my head. Unfortunately some good mathematicians have a limited ability to think visually. My first physics teacher couldn't look at a sign support on the front of a building and tell whether the diagonal brace was in tension or compression. He had to solve the algebra and see the sign of the result. A girlfriend's father who taught physics had quit chemistry because he couldn't imagine the 3 dimensional molecular structures. She was a lovely, classy lady who didn't help me concentrate on math and molecules either. jsw You're drifting, Jim. g That's another affliction we share. -- Ed Huntress |
#42
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Huntress wrote:
(...) Yes! From decades of self-teaching, I can suggest my own solution: two or three books, written by different authors, that explain the same thing in different ways. I open them all at the same time and switch back and forth. This was particularly useful to me in learning semiconductor theory many years ago, but it works for all kinds of subjects. It also helped me a great deal with the metallurgy of steel, which often is oversimplified until you can't understand what the mechanisms are. The Web often is even better at providing multiple sources, but, as we all know, it can lead you down a primrose path, too. We all appear to learn differently. I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly. It almost doesn't matter what the subject is. I find a startling qualitative difference between 'textbook' presentation (which can be obscure *and* tiresome) and this informal communication which I find clear and compelling. It's frustrating because I can't reconcile the tacit goal of the textbook with that of the newsgroup. They should both communicate effectively but in a lot of cases I get a sense that the textbook author is almost gleeful in his precise, correct and totally useless presentation. That is fascinating stuff. --Winston |
#43
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 20, 9:18*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message .. I've found that I need an intuitive explanation first to provide a framework to file away the subsequent formulaic ones, which killed me when I got to Laplace Transforms. ... A girlfriend's father who taught physics had quit chemistry because he couldn't imagine the 3 dimensional molecular structures. She was a lovely, classy lady who didn't help me concentrate on math and molecules either. jsw You're drifting, Jim. g That's another affliction we share. Ed Huntress Leading, not drifting. I had to commit to a major when I applied for college, before I really knew which science to choose. I might have switched from chemistry to mechanical or electrical engineering if I had done better in calculus. The Army put me in electronics where I stayed. However the chemistry curriculum was very broad and a good preparation for most anything. For instance I learned how to fudge a political survey by biasing the selection criteria, like calling during the day when only unemployed people are home. In the 1990's at MITRE I took night classes toward an EE degree and maintained a 4.0, including calculus. The night school teachers were practical people with day jobs who treated math as a tool, not an abstract art form. jsw |
#44
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Winston" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: (...) Yes! From decades of self-teaching, I can suggest my own solution: two or three books, written by different authors, that explain the same thing in different ways. I open them all at the same time and switch back and forth. This was particularly useful to me in learning semiconductor theory many years ago, but it works for all kinds of subjects. It also helped me a great deal with the metallurgy of steel, which often is oversimplified until you can't understand what the mechanisms are. The Web often is even better at providing multiple sources, but, as we all know, it can lead you down a primrose path, too. We all appear to learn differently. I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly. It almost doesn't matter what the subject is. I find a startling qualitative difference between 'textbook' presentation (which can be obscure *and* tiresome) and this informal communication which I find clear and compelling. It's frustrating because I can't reconcile the tacit goal of the textbook with that of the newsgroup. They should both communicate effectively but in a lot of cases I get a sense that the textbook author is almost gleeful in his precise, correct and totally useless presentation. That is fascinating stuff. --Winston Yes, it's an interesting subject when you get into it. I edited all of my wife's term papers when she was working on her master's degree in special education, and that's a big topic in her line of work. It's hard for many of us to identify with other modes of learning, but being exposed to a lot of case histories (and her students) has given me a few surprises. As for the writing of textbooks, I think it's the result of having textbooks, particularly specialized ones, written by experts in their fields who just don't have much writing experience. They tend to be pedantic, rigorous, and jargon-filled, because they worry about sounding "professional." Editing scientific papers written by medical doctors, my eyes often roll back in their sockets. Writing is like any other skill: practice, practice, practice... -- Ed Huntress |
#45
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 20, 11:30*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Winston" wrote in message ... I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly. It almost doesn't matter what the subject is. I spend so long editing the initial garbage that I spew for style and clarity and logical sequence that the session often times out and I have to copy and paste the text into a new one. That's why my posts may contain complete non-sequiturs where I missed a major change at line wrap, which isn't where you see it. I find a startling qualitative difference between 'textbook' presentation (which can be obscure *and* tiresome) and this informal communication which I find clear and compelling. It's frustrating because I can't reconcile the tacit goal of the textbook with that of the newsgroup. They should both communicate effectively but in a lot of cases I get a sense that the textbook author is almost gleeful in his precise, correct and totally useless presentation. I began posting here for informal practice when I was having enormous difficulty writing technical reports and manuals. The group may complain but they don't write my review. That pedantic, rigorous, and jargon-filled style is a valuable insider shorthand for concepts not easily expressed in standard civilian English. I just had an argument about Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in another group and found myself writing that way. MITRE offered a class on how to write technical Governmentese, which is similar to Legalese in that some words have specific restricted meanings. The instructor explained that the writing style of an organization mirrors its balance between freedom of initiative and personal responsibility, and the consequences of mistakes. He used a bank as one extreme and an artists' collective as the other. An investment prospectus and an art review are the same thing written under different rules in radically different styles. jsw |
#46
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Huntress wrote:
(...) It's hard for many of us to identify with other modes of learning, but being exposed to a lot of case histories (and her students) has given me a few surprises. I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him? ![]() As for the writing of textbooks, I think it's the result of having textbooks, particularly specialized ones, written by experts in their fields who just don't have much writing experience. They tend to be pedantic, rigorous, and jargon-filled, because they worry about sounding "professional." Editing scientific papers written by medical doctors, my eyes often roll back in their sockets. Yup. Though in my my experience, mail carriers are about the only group that have chosen not to 'bombard me with obfuscation'. I'm sure they could if they wanted to. ![]() Writing is like any other skill: practice, practice, practice... Yup. --Winston |
#47
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On May 20, 11:30 am, "Ed wrote: wrote in message ... I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly. It almost doesn't matter what the subject is. I spend so long editing the initial garbage that I spew (...) You've participated in RCM long enough to know what 'garbage' is, Jim. Your posts are exactly the opposite, IMNSHO. An investment prospectus and an art review are the same thing written under different rules in radically different styles. Yes. One is a fantastical work of hyperbole that concludes with a mean surprise at the end. The other one is an art review. When we discuss SWMBO's day, she sometimes falls into 'Organizational Lingo' and I ask her to back up and explain some of the acronyms. I'm guilty too. I got a look of utter surprise from a nice lady last week when I mentioned that I was having difficulty with my 'POP client'. Shame on me. ![]() --Winston |
#48
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Winston wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: (...) ? It's hard for many of us to identify with other modes of learning, ? but being exposed to a lot of case histories (and her students) ? has given me a few surprises. I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him? ![]() Dead. He died last May 26 of last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter -- It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch. |
#49
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Winston wrote: (...) I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him? ![]() Dead. He died last May 26 of last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter Now *there* is a life well spent. --Winston |
#50
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() " wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Winston wrote: (...) I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him? ![]() Dead. He died last May 26 of last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter Now *there* is a life well spent. A real entertainer, who didn't have to 'work blue'. ![]() -- It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch. |
#51
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gunner Asch on Wed, 18 May 2011 01:54:09 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:37:15 -0500, Ignoramus31865 wrote: On 2011-05-18, Pete C. wrote: Ignoramus31865 wrote: I have a GM 3/4 ton pickup. I won, in an auction, a "Ramco RM5000" crane. This crane is similar to the Harbor Freight truck crane, but is a lot beefier. It is pictured he http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Ramco-RM5000-Truck-Crane.jpg (not mine, but an identical model). This is rated for 5k pounds, I am sure for the boom fully retracted. It has a 8,000 lbs jack. I will put in a longer boom too, and a winch. I am aware that extending the boom will decrease capacity proportionally, so a boom that is 4 foot would decrease capacity of the crane to, say, 1,500 lbs or whatever. I have to call the mfr to find out. This is stillw ay better than my HF crane. I have a very large 3/4 inch steel plate, I would say 3x4 feet, that is rusting in my backyard. What I thought of doing, is making a cutout on the plate to fit around a wheel well, and mount it in the back of the truck's bed, and put the crane on top of it. The Ramco crane would sit in the rear right corner of the bed, just like this Harbor Freight crane does now: http://goo.gl/KAN0Y It has to be a large plate, to spread the weight of the crane and the levering action that its base would apply to the bed. This particular plate weighs around 300 lbs and is large enough. My question is, what sort of constraints do I still have. I would hate to overturn my truck, break suspension, etc. I would also think that for heavy lifting, I would need to jack up the right rear wheel too. Any practical opinions? i A crane with that weight capacity really needs to be mounted to the frame, not to pickup bed sheetmetal. I think typically it would be mounted with a beefy bracket under the bed to the frame. A support leg (trailer jack) for the corner of the truck with the crane is common for the heavier cranes so you don't apply a concentrated load to the suspension on one side of the truck and also to stabilize it so it stays level during the lift instead of tilting to that side. What I was going to do is put a steel plate, 3x4 feet or so, on the bed and bolt it to the bed. Would that not be enough support for the crane? I already have this plate and it is huge. i That plate HAS to be bolted to the frame. Period Amazing how flexible truck beds can be. Especially to the torque of an asymmetrical load. No matter how thick it is. Oh I don't know, a bed whcih is six inches thick _might_ hold. Then again, the whole bed might also just come loose from the frame, from the torque. Gunner -- pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
#52
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Is there mounting plate locations on the Frame underneath ?
Attach low and have a hole in the bed going down to the plate. These almost no frame cars and some trucks might be a nightmare. Full size trucks have rails for the frame. Just an idea. Naturally if you have to have the payload area for a load you are then talking about outriders that you plant into the ground (plate under them) to stabilize side loads. Martin On 5/21/2011 7:40 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: Gunner on Wed, 18 May 2011 01:54:09 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:37:15 -0500, Ignoramus31865 wrote: On 2011-05-18, Pete wrote: Ignoramus31865 wrote: I have a GM 3/4 ton pickup. I won, in an auction, a "Ramco RM5000" crane. This crane is similar to the Harbor Freight truck crane, but is a lot beefier. It is pictured he http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Ramco-RM5000-Truck-Crane.jpg (not mine, but an identical model). This is rated for 5k pounds, I am sure for the boom fully retracted. It has a 8,000 lbs jack. I will put in a longer boom too, and a winch. I am aware that extending the boom will decrease capacity proportionally, so a boom that is 4 foot would decrease capacity of the crane to, say, 1,500 lbs or whatever. I have to call the mfr to find out. This is stillw ay better than my HF crane. I have a very large 3/4 inch steel plate, I would say 3x4 feet, that is rusting in my backyard. What I thought of doing, is making a cutout on the plate to fit around a wheel well, and mount it in the back of the truck's bed, and put the crane on top of it. The Ramco crane would sit in the rear right corner of the bed, just like this Harbor Freight crane does now: http://goo.gl/KAN0Y It has to be a large plate, to spread the weight of the crane and the levering action that its base would apply to the bed. This particular plate weighs around 300 lbs and is large enough. My question is, what sort of constraints do I still have. I would hate to overturn my truck, break suspension, etc. I would also think that for heavy lifting, I would need to jack up the right rear wheel too. Any practical opinions? i A crane with that weight capacity really needs to be mounted to the frame, not to pickup bed sheetmetal. I think typically it would be mounted with a beefy bracket under the bed to the frame. A support leg (trailer jack) for the corner of the truck with the crane is common for the heavier cranes so you don't apply a concentrated load to the suspension on one side of the truck and also to stabilize it so it stays level during the lift instead of tilting to that side. What I was going to do is put a steel plate, 3x4 feet or so, on the bed and bolt it to the bed. Would that not be enough support for the crane? I already have this plate and it is huge. i That plate HAS to be bolted to the frame. Period Amazing how flexible truck beds can be. Especially to the torque of an asymmetrical load. No matter how thick it is. Oh I don't know, a bed whcih is six inches thick _might_ hold. Then again, the whole bed might also just come loose from the frame, from the torque. Gunner |
#53
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I had a 1 ton Chev dually I took a 1/4 inch thick wall pipe and welded it to the side of the frame right behind the spring hanger bracket and weld to it to cut a hole in the bed so the pipe was flush with the bottom of the bed so there was nothing sticking up when the hoist was remove. I use it for years picking up various things I think the heaviest thing I lifted was a 8x8 foot steel disk and loaded it on a trailer I had made a 6 foot boom for mine with capped ends.
|
#54
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
replying to Ignoramus31865, Wing wrote:
Y not ubolt the lift frame to the truck frame. U might want to box the truck frame where the bolts are. I would make sure to fill the void Btwn the top of the frame and bottom of box at the mounting points Consider two support jacks in the rear one on the front right in case u are doing side lift -- for full context, visit https://www.polytechforum.com/metalw...up-504259-.htm |
#55
![]()
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:18:06 PM UTC-5, Wing wrote:
replying to Ignoramus31865, Wing wrote: Y not ubolt the lift frame to the truck frame. U might want to box the truck frame where the bolts are. I would make sure to fill the void Btwn the top of the frame and bottom of box at the mounting points Consider two support jacks in the rear one on the front right in case u are doing side lift -- for full context, visit https://www.polytechforum.com/metalw...up-504259-.htm I thought the truck manufacturers consult professional engineers for questions like this. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stabilizing a HF Shop Crane | Metalworking | |||
HF truck crane | Metalworking | |||
hot tub -v- 60 tonne crane | UK diy | |||
Old Crane Sink | Home Repair | |||
1957 Crane Sink | Home Repair |