Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey
looking crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It
works. It sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve
fails. I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of
wire.

On Apr 18, 11:20*pm, Bob La Londe wrote:
Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. *For me its just a way to
help a buddy. *It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. *Right now he is using a cludgey
looking crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. *It
works. *It sells. *He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve
fails. *I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of
wire.

Its subject to continuous flexing and vibration when in use.

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 11:20 pm, Bob La Londe wrote:
Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey
looking crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It
works. It sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve
fails. I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of
wire.

Its subject to continuous flexing and vibration when in use.


================================================== ===============

Bob,

What's the original diameter & reduced diameters and over what distance is
it reduced?

Are you talking "piano" wire size?

On Apr 18, 11:37*pm, "Dennis" wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in ...
On Apr 18, 11:20 pm, Bob La Londe wrote:

Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey
looking crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It
works. It sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve
fails. I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of
wire.

Its subject to continuous flexing and vibration when in use.

================================================== ===============

Bob,

What's the original diameter & reduced diameters and over what distance is
it reduced?

Are you talking "piano" wire size?

"Real" piano wire covers a range of sizes. I'll measure one and give
some more specifics. Probably in the ball park of .045" down to .
03". Maybe 6" or 7" total with 1/3 thinned to the smaller size. The
transition could cover .75".

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
...
Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey
looking crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It
works. It sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve
fails. I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of
wire.

Centerless grinding?

Or grind serrations in the ends to give the crimp something to hold onto?

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:20:58 -0700, Bob La Londe wrote:

Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey looking
crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It works. It
sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve fails. I
think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of wire.

Volumes?

* Draw the wire down (note -- I don't know how to do this, but it
sounds easy if someone else is doing the work!!)
* make a nice stainless collar, and braze
* butt weld a .03 wire onto a .045 wire (presumably mechanically)

Whatever I did, I'd be worried about fatigue if the thing is stressed or
vibrated at all. I think drawing the wire could be made to have the
smoothest -- and hence most reliable -- transition.



--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:44:17 -0700 (PDT), Bob La Londe
wrote:

On Apr 18, 11:37*pm, "Dennis" wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in ...
On Apr 18, 11:20 pm, Bob La Londe wrote:

Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey
looking crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It
works. It sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve
fails. I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of
wire.

Its subject to continuous flexing and vibration when in use.

================================================== ===============

Bob,

What's the original diameter & reduced diameters and over what distance is
it reduced?

Are you talking "piano" wire size?

"Real" piano wire covers a range of sizes. I'll measure one and give
some more specifics. Probably in the ball park of .045" down to .
03". Maybe 6" or 7" total with 1/3 thinned to the smaller size. The
transition could cover .75".

That's within the range of infeed centerless grinding, which is cheap
if done in quantity. It's usually not expensive even in small batches.

However, a lot depends on the loads you're talking about.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 19, 8:01*am, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:20:58 -0700, Bob La Londe wrote:
Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. *For me its just a way to
help a buddy. *It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. *Right now he is using a cludgey looking
crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. *It works. *It
sells. *He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve fails. *I
think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of wire.

Volumes?

* Draw the wire down (note -- I don't know how to do this, but it
* sounds easy if someone else is doing the work!!)
* make a nice stainless collar, and braze
* butt weld a .03 wire onto a .045 wire (presumably mechanically)

Whatever I did, I'd be worried about fatigue if the thing is stressed or
vibrated at all. *I think drawing the wire could be made to have the
smoothest -- and hence most reliable -- transition.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com

The heavy side may have occassional sudden shock forces of about 50
pound +/- , and occassional continuous loads of 3-20 pounds +/-. Best
case it would experience those forces 20-50 times in a day. Worst
case it would not experience them at all.

The light side will have continuous vibration or flexing of upto 1
inch (more like 1/4-1/2 inch normally) at a flex rate of about 3-10
times per second. (I'm guessing here.) Additonally the light side
might have occassional greater flexing at about the same rate as the
sudden loads on the heavy side.

There is a product that does this with all lighter wire, and it some
times fails on the load side costing the user the load. Failure is
not unreasonable if the rate is not excessive. Loss of the load will
sometimes make a user cry.

There are products that do this with all heavier wire, but at the cost
of the vibration and flexing. It works, but the extra vibration of
the lighter wire is a desireable attribute and increases the appeal of
the product.

My buddies product is a hybrid of the two and it does work. The weak
link is the join. I believe he spot welds the wire side by side, and
then slides the crimp sleeve over it to keep forces from working
directly on the weld and the HAZ. The sleeve by itself is not
enough.

The dual diameter pieces would still need to be formed using
conventional wire forming techniques afterwards.

If it worked out end quantities would probably be a thousand units at
a time +/-. A test run of a couple hundred would not be
unreasonable. Currenty he makes a couple hundred end product at a
time.

There is a caveat. I believe that a dual diameter wire might make for
a superior product in several ways, however the ugly (in my opinion)
crimp sleeve does draw attention to the very nature of the concept of
dual wire sizes. One for strength, and one for greater vibration. It
might not be better marketing to make the product prettier.

I'll measure the two wire sizes when I get out to the shop and post
that info later.

Bob La Londe writes:

....It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short piece of
stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey looking
crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It works.
It sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve fails.
I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of wire.

Does that larger OD section have to be perfectly round and smooth?

If not, why not go the other way? Start with a piece of the smaller
diameter. Work out some way of rippling [1] the part that needs to be
larger so that its effective diameter is big enoungh.


[1] Or knurling or crimping. Or flatten ever so slightly and twist.
Once set up, a little machine to do this should turn out a
lifetime supply in an hour.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 11:37 pm, "Dennis" wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in
...
On Apr 18, 11:20 pm, Bob La Londe wrote:

Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way
to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a
short
piece of stainless spring wire. ...
Its subject to continuous flexing and vibration when in use.

-Probably in the ball park of .045" down to .
-03". Maybe 6" or 7" total with 1/3 thinned to the smaller size. The
-transition could cover .75".

You could slowly lower the wires into an etchant to taper them, but
you might have to inspect under a microscope for stress concentrators
at defects.

jsw

"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Bob La Londe writes:

....It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short piece of
stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey looking
crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It works.
It sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve fails.
I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of wire.

Does that larger OD section have to be perfectly round and smooth?

If not, why not go the other way? Start with a piece of the smaller
diameter. Work out some way of rippling [1] the part that needs to be
larger so that its effective diameter is big enoungh.


[1] Or knurling or crimping. Or flatten ever so slightly and twist.
Once set up, a little machine to do this should turn out a
lifetime supply in an hour.

That is certainly an outside of the box solution. On the surface it doesn't
sound right for the application to me, but I'll think about it for a while.
Its not about size, but about strength on the larger size side.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 11:37 pm, "Dennis" wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in
...
On Apr 18, 11:20 pm, Bob La Londe wrote:

Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. ...
Its subject to continuous flexing and vibration when in use.

-Probably in the ball park of .045" down to .
-03". Maybe 6" or 7" total with 1/3 thinned to the smaller size. The
-transition could cover .75".

You could slowly lower the wires into an etchant to taper them, but you
might have to inspect under a microscope for stress concentrators at
defects.

I had thought about hard points and figured the final transition to the
smaller diameter probably should be a tiny cove rather than a hard angle.
Irregular pockets from etching could certainly create small hard points
though out.

Bob La Londe wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:37 pm, "Dennis" wrote:

"Bob La Londe" wrote in ...
On Apr 18, 11:20 pm, Bob La Londe wrote:


Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey
looking crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It
works. It sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve
fails. I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of
wire.

Its subject to continuous flexing and vibration when in use.

================================================== ===============

Bob,

What's the original diameter & reduced diameters and over what distance is
it reduced?

Are you talking "piano" wire size?


"Real" piano wire covers a range of sizes. I'll measure one and give
some more specifics. Probably in the ball park of .045" down to .
03". Maybe 6" or 7" total with 1/3 thinned to the smaller size. The
transition could cover .75".

Could he use something pre-exisiting such as a double butted stainless
steel bicycle spoke. They're readily available in a number of lengths
and diameters in the sort of range you're looking at.

On 4/19/2012 12:33 PM, Bob La Londe wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 11:37 pm, "Dennis" wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in
...

On Apr 18, 11:20 pm, Bob La Londe wrote:

Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. ...
Its subject to continuous flexing and vibration when in use.

-Probably in the ball park of .045" down to .
-03". Maybe 6" or 7" total with 1/3 thinned to the smaller size. The
-transition could cover .75".

You could slowly lower the wires into an etchant to taper them, but
you might have to inspect under a microscope for stress concentrators
at defects.

I had thought about hard points and figured the final transition to the
smaller diameter probably should be a tiny cove rather than a hard
angle. Irregular pockets from etching could certainly create small hard
points though out.




It might be worth trying, though.

Beechcraft used exactly thins kind of "chemical milling" on aluminum
skins as far back as the late '50s.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:17:50 -0700, Bob La Londe wrote:

On Apr 19, 8:01Â*am, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:20:58 -0700, Bob La Londe wrote:
Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. Â*For me its just a way
to help a buddy. Â*It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a
short piece of stainless spring wire. Â*Right now he is using a
cludgey looking crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of
wire. Â*It works. Â*It sells. Â*He warranties a fair amount when the
crimp sleeve fails. Â*I think minimum failure would be if it were one
piece of wire.

Volumes?

* Draw the wire down (note -- I don't know how to do this, but it
Â* sounds easy if someone else is doing the work!!)
* make a nice stainless collar, and braze * butt weld a .03 wire onto a
.045 wire (presumably mechanically)

Whatever I did, I'd be worried about fatigue if the thing is stressed
or vibrated at all. Â*I think drawing the wire could be made to have the
smoothest -- and hence most reliable -- transition.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative
friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have
found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits &
Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com

The heavy side may have occassional sudden shock forces of about 50
pound +/- , and occassional continuous loads of 3-20 pounds +/-. Best
case it would experience those forces 20-50 times in a day. Worst case
it would not experience them at all.

The light side will have continuous vibration or flexing of upto 1 inch
(more like 1/4-1/2 inch normally) at a flex rate of about 3-10 times per
second. (I'm guessing here.) Additonally the light side might have
occassional greater flexing at about the same rate as the sudden loads
on the heavy side.

There is a product that does this with all lighter wire, and it some
times fails on the load side costing the user the load. Failure is not
unreasonable if the rate is not excessive. Loss of the load will
sometimes make a user cry.

There are products that do this with all heavier wire, but at the cost
of the vibration and flexing. It works, but the extra vibration of the
lighter wire is a desireable attribute and increases the appeal of the
product.

My buddies product is a hybrid of the two and it does work. The weak
link is the join. I believe he spot welds the wire side by side, and
then slides the crimp sleeve over it to keep forces from working
directly on the weld and the HAZ. The sleeve by itself is not enough.

The dual diameter pieces would still need to be formed using
conventional wire forming techniques afterwards.

If it worked out end quantities would probably be a thousand units at a
time +/-. A test run of a couple hundred would not be unreasonable.
Currenty he makes a couple hundred end product at a time.

There is a caveat. I believe that a dual diameter wire might make for a
superior product in several ways, however the ugly (in my opinion) crimp
sleeve does draw attention to the very nature of the concept of dual
wire sizes. One for strength, and one for greater vibration. It might
not be better marketing to make the product prettier.

I'll measure the two wire sizes when I get out to the shop and post that
info later.

I forgot to ask how hard the wires are.

Bicycle spokes are (or were) available double-butted, with larger
diameter wire at the ends and thinned down in the middle. I don't know
how it was done -- but it was affordable enough that a lot of racer
wannabes got the opportunity to discover the difference between a wheel
that saves an ounce of weight, and a wheel that'll survive potholes with
aplomb.

So the notion of a dual-diameter wire is out there in at least one
market. It seems like there might be some specialty wire shops out there
that one could order from -- or one could develop a machine and do it the
old fashioned way.

Hardness probably matters. The fact that it's stainless probably makes
the job harder, because of work hardening.

If you want to draw attention to the dual-sized wire, make a little black
plastic sleeve and force it down the wire to cover the tapered portion--
that'll make things obvious, without introducing stress risers like his
current design.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Should be able to roll it - have two rollers each with a half-cylinder
groove the size of the small end you want, spin them against each other and
feed in wire the size of the big end, stop when you have enough small wire
and reverse. May have to feed the wire in and out a couple of times as you
bring the rollers together, depending on the two diameters, but with a limit
switches that the small end hits to automatically reverse the motor you
should be able to get each wire in maybe 10 seconds?

-----
Regards,
Carl Ijames
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
...

Ok... I have an idea to pitch to a buddy to offer him a "superior"
product to one he is making and selling now. For me its just a way to
help a buddy. It requires substantially thinning about 1/3 of a short
piece of stainless spring wire. Right now he is using a cludgey
looking crimp sleeve to join two different size pieces of wire. It
works. It sells. He warranties a fair amount when the crimp sleeve
fails. I think minimum failure would be if it were one piece of
wire.