250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40 characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

Jon

Jon Anderson wrote:
250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40 characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

I'd love to see people make stuff like that again. Even adding machines
are pretty interesting beasts that building from scratch would baffle most
anybody.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jon Anderson wrote:
250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40 characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

I'd love to see people make stuff like that again. Even adding machines
are pretty interesting beasts that building from scratch would baffle most
anybody.


From the Wiki:

"Constructed between 1768 and 1774 by Pierre Jaquet-Droz, his son
Henri-Louis (1752-1791), and Jean-Fred-Leschot (1746-1824) were The
Writer (made of 6000 pieces), The Musician (2500 pieces), and The
Draughtsman (2000 pieces)". If we assume an equal period for building
each item we are looking at approximately 2 years each, for three
experienced watch makers.

What would one estimate the cost of hiring 3 experienced watch makers
(if you can find them) for two years, to make one of these automated
model?
--

Cheers,

M.Y.Aquila

wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jon Anderson wrote:
250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40 characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

I'd love to see people make stuff like that again. Even adding machines
are pretty interesting beasts that building from scratch would baffle most
anybody.


From the Wiki:

"Constructed between 1768 and 1774 by Pierre Jaquet-Droz, his son
Henri-Louis (1752-1791), and Jean-Fred-Leschot (1746-1824) were The
Writer (made of 6000 pieces), The Musician (2500 pieces), and The
Draughtsman (2000 pieces)". If we assume an equal period for building
each item we are looking at approximately 2 years each, for three
experienced watch makers.

What would one estimate the cost of hiring 3 experienced watch makers
(if you can find them) for two years, to make one of these automated
model?

It's all relative, but for less than the price of a poorly constructed
home around here.

I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

Here in Chicago we have a strange museum with a collection of old surgical
instruments http://imss.org/

Other than looking old in style and not being plated the hundreds of years
old hand tools appear to have excellent fit and finish. It's fascinating.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:42:12 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jon Anderson wrote:
250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40 characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

I'd love to see people make stuff like that again. Even adding machines
are pretty interesting beasts that building from scratch would baffle most
anybody.


From the Wiki:

"Constructed between 1768 and 1774 by Pierre Jaquet-Droz, his son
Henri-Louis (1752-1791), and Jean-Fred-Leschot (1746-1824) were The
Writer (made of 6000 pieces), The Musician (2500 pieces), and The
Draughtsman (2000 pieces)". If we assume an equal period for building
each item we are looking at approximately 2 years each, for three
experienced watch makers.

What would one estimate the cost of hiring 3 experienced watch makers
(if you can find them) for two years, to make one of these automated
model?

It's all relative, but for less than the price of a poorly constructed
home around here.

I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

Here in Chicago we have a strange museum with a collection of old surgical
instruments http://imss.org/

Other than looking old in style and not being plated the hundreds of years
old hand tools appear to have excellent fit and finish. It's fascinating.

I suspect that although the French, at least, standardized sizes on
their artillery in the 1700's, that much of it was probably "hand
fitting". It used to be that machinists did a lot of work "to fit".
The old fellow that was the Apprentice Master when I learned the trade
made a surface plate as his journeyman's project. He said that he
started with three castings and did all the work by hand.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:42:12 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jon Anderson wrote:
250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40
characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

I'd love to see people make stuff like that again. Even adding
machines
are pretty interesting beasts that building from scratch would
baffle most
anybody.


From the Wiki:

"Constructed between 1768 and 1774 by Pierre Jaquet-Droz, his son
Henri-Louis (1752-1791), and Jean-Fred-Leschot (1746-1824) were
The
Writer (made of 6000 pieces), The Musician (2500 pieces), and The
Draughtsman (2000 pieces)". If we assume an equal period for
building
each item we are looking at approximately 2 years each, for three
experienced watch makers.

What would one estimate the cost of hiring 3 experienced watch
makers
(if you can find them) for two years, to make one of these
automated
model?

It's all relative, but for less than the price of a poorly
constructed
home around here.

I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates the
metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did machinists
even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what they
had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

Here in Chicago we have a strange museum with a collection of old
surgical
instruments http://imss.org/

Other than looking old in style and not being plated the hundreds of
years
old hand tools appear to have excellent fit and finish. It's
fascinating.

I suspect that although the French, at least, standardized sizes on
their artillery in the 1700's, that much of it was probably "hand
fitting". It used to be that machinists did a lot of work "to fit".
The old fellow that was the Apprentice Master when I learned the
trade
made a surface plate as his journeyman's project. He said that he
started with three castings and did all the work by hand.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Metal sheet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_(metalworking)
http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/articles/ancient-minting
"Henri II (1547-1559) imported the new machines: rolling mill, punch
and screw press."

Shaping the parts:
http://www.fdjtool.com/custom.aspx?id=117
http://historicgames.com/lathes/bowlathes.html

Cutting threads:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31756...-h/31756-h.htm
The spindle was threaded and advanced the workpiece past a fixed
cutter as both turned. Fig 14 shows the spindle with several master
thread pitches.

http://www.jamesriser.com/Machinery/...g_chasers.html

An old way to generate a sufficiently accurate master thread pitch is
to wind drawn wire around the shaft. If you wind a pair, one brass and
the other black iron, you can then solder the brass to the shaft
without the iron wire sticking. The brass wire helix will run tightly
in a guide long enough to cut the master thread on another part of the
shaft, then you can unsolder the wire and wind a different size to cut
another pitch.

The Holtzapffel book series is a gold mine of pre-industrial
metalworking, though it slights precision instruments in favor of
elaborate decoration, which was their business:
http://archive.org/search.php?query=holtzapffel

http://ornamentalroseengine.com/rose/rose2/holtz.php

-jsw

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 8:42:08 PM UTC-6, Jon Anderson wrote:
250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40 characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

Jon

Similar to the one in the movie "Hugo": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_%28film%29

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:42:12 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jon Anderson wrote:
.........
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates the
metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what they
had
hundreds of years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_drill

The drill bit is flattened on the end like a modern spade bit, and may
cut in one or both directions. I made a pump drill to use carbide
circuit board bits when the company's Dremel was broken.

Brown and Sharpe's original milling machine mechanized the manufacture
of precision twist drills for mass production during the US Civil War.
Previously the flutes had been filed.

The "D" bit is an easier alternate shape that works very well, though
it cuts slower than a twist drill:
http://www.machineconcepts.co.uk/smallpipes/tools.htm

It can drill or ream tapered as well as round holes, for example
ancient Roman faucet stopcocks, perhaps the earliest accurately round
and closely fitted shafts and bores.
http://www.theplumber.com/pom.html
"Rome's public baths featured silver faucets, and there is no reason
to assume otherwise in Pompeii. Luxury plumbing also featured
four-branch fittings or crosses, brass stop cocks, wipe joints and
individual-size bronze bathtubs."
http://www.valvias.com/history.php

-jsw

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 8:42:08 PM UTC-6, Jon Anderson
wrote:
250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40 characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

Jon

Similar to the one in the movie "Hugo":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_%28film%29

http://www.theinventionofhugocabret...._hugo_auto.htm

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:42:12 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jon Anderson wrote:
250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40
characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

I'd love to see people make stuff like that again. Even adding
machines
are pretty interesting beasts that building from scratch would
baffle most
anybody.


From the Wiki:

"Constructed between 1768 and 1774 by Pierre Jaquet-Droz, his son
Henri-Louis (1752-1791), and Jean-Fred-Leschot (1746-1824) were
The
Writer (made of 6000 pieces), The Musician (2500 pieces), and The
Draughtsman (2000 pieces)". If we assume an equal period for
building
each item we are looking at approximately 2 years each, for three
experienced watch makers.

What would one estimate the cost of hiring 3 experienced watch
makers
(if you can find them) for two years, to make one of these
automated
model?

It's all relative, but for less than the price of a poorly
constructed
home around here.

I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates the
metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did machinists
even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what they
had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

Here in Chicago we have a strange museum with a collection of old
surgical
instruments http://imss.org/

Other than looking old in style and not being plated the hundreds of
years
old hand tools appear to have excellent fit and finish. It's
fascinating.

I suspect that although the French, at least, standardized sizes on
their artillery in the 1700's, that much of it was probably "hand
fitting". It used to be that machinists did a lot of work "to fit".
The old fellow that was the Apprentice Master when I learned the
trade
made a surface plate as his journeyman's project. He said that he
started with three castings and did all the work by hand.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Metal sheet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_(metalworking)
http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/articles/ancient-minting
"Henri II (1547-1559) imported the new machines: rolling mill, punch
and screw press."

Shaping the parts:
http://www.fdjtool.com/custom.aspx?id=117
http://historicgames.com/lathes/bowlathes.html

Cutting threads:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31756...-h/31756-h.htm
The spindle was threaded and advanced the workpiece past a fixed
cutter as both turned. Fig 14 shows the spindle with several master
thread pitches.

http://www.jamesriser.com/Machinery/...g_chasers.html

An old way to generate a sufficiently accurate master thread pitch is
to wind drawn wire around the shaft. If you wind a pair, one brass and
the other black iron, you can then solder the brass to the shaft
without the iron wire sticking. The brass wire helix will run tightly
in a guide long enough to cut the master thread on another part of the
shaft, then you can unsolder the wire and wind a different size to cut
another pitch.

The Holtzapffel book series is a gold mine of pre-industrial
metalworking, though it slights precision instruments in favor of
elaborate decoration, which was their business:
http://archive.org/search.php?query=holtzapffel

http://ornamentalroseengine.com/rose/rose2/holtz.php

-jsw



fascinting links.

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:42:12 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:
Jon Anderson wrote:

fascinting links.

I've used old methods on a space project. The project manager bought a
thermoelectric cooler controller from a garage outfit, and its cast
heatsink / mounting plate was dished in under the power transistors by
more than I could salvage by flycutting. I took it home and matched
the contour to an aluminum plate by filing and scraping after roughly
milling the shape.
-jsw

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another problem

On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes, with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder. The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004...rate_tool_work

-jsw

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004...rate_tool_work

-jsw


Oh, man, that's great! I had no idea that book was still available
anywhere, and there it is as a free PDF.

I read it around 40 years ago, along with all of Stanley's other
books, and the early books by Dick Moore. We had them all in the
McGraw-Hill (American Machinist) library, and I've tried several times
to find out what happened to them since M-H sold American Machinist.

Thanks, Jim. That book will be of interest to anyone who's interested
in century-old precision machining methods.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did
one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the
Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as
quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and
uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is
another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs,
used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock
and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was
kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground
with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004...rate_tool_work

-jsw


Oh, man, that's great! I had no idea that book was still available
anywhere, and there it is as a free PDF.

I read it around 40 years ago, along with all of Stanley's other
books, and the early books by Dick Moore. We had them all in the
McGraw-Hill (American Machinist) library, and I've tried several
times
to find out what happened to them since M-H sold American Machinist.

Thanks, Jim. That book will be of interest to anyone who's
interested
in century-old precision machining methods.

--
Ed Huntress

I have the Lindsay reprint. I used its methods to make a set of disks
to locate the alignment pin holes for pie jaws for a Microcentric
lathe chuck. The project ate up most of a day.

-jsw

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004...rate_tool_work

-jsw

Thanks for the link Jim.
rgentryatozdotnet

On 25/01/15 02:42, Jon Anderson wrote:
250 year old automaton that writes with a quill pen,
and can be programmed with any combination of up to 40 characters!
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

Jon
I saw that on IIRC a BBC program about automatons, very impressive, of
course there was the equally impressive chess playing Turk until it was
unmasked as a fake by hiding a human chess player inside, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk

"Bob Gentry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
message
. ..
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli
the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back
then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used
today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill
bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no
onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform
thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered)
in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and
the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials
and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of
making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in
making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile
timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related
to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use,
that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of
drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who
made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on
the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about
the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels
of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the
production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to
make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the
working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master
plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for
checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they
were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then
internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an
internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into
all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004...rate_tool_work

-jsw

Thanks for the link Jim.

Many thanks from here too, Jim. I tried to open
the link with IE8 but no go. But it did open with
google chrome just fine and I was able to save
it from there. Sure wish I had this many years
ago when I was a rookie metalworker! pdk

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004254M/Accurate_tool_work

-jsw


Oh, man, that's great! I had no idea that book was still available
anywhere, and there it is as a free PDF.

I read it around 40 years ago, along with all of Stanley's other
books, and the early books by Dick Moore. We had them all in the
McGraw-Hill (American Machinist) library, and I've tried several times
to find out what happened to them since M-H sold American Machinist.

Thanks, Jim. That book will be of interest to anyone who's interested
in century-old precision machining methods.

Some of which I sometimes still use, in a pinch.

I always wondered how they could make things so precisely on those
floppy old lathes et al. Turns out that our grandfathers were pretty
smart.

Joe Gwinn

On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:32:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004254M/Accurate_tool_work

-jsw


Oh, man, that's great! I had no idea that book was still available
anywhere, and there it is as a free PDF.

I read it around 40 years ago, along with all of Stanley's other
books, and the early books by Dick Moore. We had them all in the
McGraw-Hill (American Machinist) library, and I've tried several times
to find out what happened to them since M-H sold American Machinist.

Thanks, Jim. That book will be of interest to anyone who's interested
in century-old precision machining methods.

Some of which I sometimes still use, in a pinch.

I always wondered how they could make things so precisely on those
floppy old lathes et al. Turns out that our grandfathers were pretty
smart.

Joe Gwinn

It's a fascinating subject. Much of my interest in my old machine
tools (not much is left after I scrapped my 1917 mill and my 1924
surface grinder) is in learning those old techniques. That works for
me, because I inherited a lot of old accessories and a 1945 South Bend
10L, and I'm too cheap to spend a lot of money on a hobby.

I also had lunch with Dick Moore not long before he died, and I
visited Moore Special Tool many times. That place is, or was, a museum
of old, masterful techniques for producing extreme accuracy with
cleverness, rather than modern opto-electronic methods.

I still have close to 6 carats of diamond bort in olive oil, and I
have tried my hand at making diamond points. I got out a couple that
worked but I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living.

Those old toolmakers needed the patience of Job and the persistance of
Sisyphus.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:32:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004254M/Accurate_tool_work

-jsw


Oh, man, that's great! I had no idea that book was still available
anywhere, and there it is as a free PDF.

I read it around 40 years ago, along with all of Stanley's other
books, and the early books by Dick Moore. We had them all in the
McGraw-Hill (American Machinist) library, and I've tried several times
to find out what happened to them since M-H sold American Machinist.

Thanks, Jim. That book will be of interest to anyone who's interested
in century-old precision machining methods.

Some of which I sometimes still use, in a pinch.

I always wondered how they could make things so precisely on those
floppy old lathes et al. Turns out that our grandfathers were pretty
smart.

Joe Gwinn

It's a fascinating subject. Much of my interest in my old machine
tools (not much is left after I scrapped my 1917 mill and my 1924
surface grinder) is in learning those old techniques. That works for
me, because I inherited a lot of old accessories and a 1945 South Bend
10L, and I'm too cheap to spend a lot of money on a hobby.

My machines date from the 1960 and 1970s, although I only acquired than
in the 1990s.


I also had lunch with Dick Moore not long before he died, and I
visited Moore Special Tool many times. That place is, or was, a museum
of old, masterful techniques for producing extreme accuracy with
cleverness, rather than modern opto-electronic methods.

Yes. I've read his book.


I still have close to 6 carats of diamond bort in olive oil, and I
have tried my hand at making diamond points. I got out a couple that
worked but I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living.

How did they make diamond points? When I google, all I get is modern
diamond turning of brittle substances, like glass, used in the optical
industry.

Speaking of Moore Precision: http://www.nanotechsys.com/


Those old toolmakers needed the patience of Job and the persistance of
Sisyphus.

Scraping is that way to this day. I read that tome on reconditioning
machine tools. I've done a little.

Scraping is also one of those old techniques that I roll out from time
to time - it can be the quickest way to done.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 17:11:51 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:32:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004254M/Accurate_tool_work

-jsw


Oh, man, that's great! I had no idea that book was still available
anywhere, and there it is as a free PDF.

I read it around 40 years ago, along with all of Stanley's other
books, and the early books by Dick Moore. We had them all in the
McGraw-Hill (American Machinist) library, and I've tried several times
to find out what happened to them since M-H sold American Machinist.

Thanks, Jim. That book will be of interest to anyone who's interested
in century-old precision machining methods.

Some of which I sometimes still use, in a pinch.

I always wondered how they could make things so precisely on those
floppy old lathes et al. Turns out that our grandfathers were pretty
smart.

Joe Gwinn

It's a fascinating subject. Much of my interest in my old machine
tools (not much is left after I scrapped my 1917 mill and my 1924
surface grinder) is in learning those old techniques. That works for
me, because I inherited a lot of old accessories and a 1945 South Bend
10L, and I'm too cheap to spend a lot of money on a hobby.

My machines date from the 1960 and 1970s, although I only acquired than
in the 1990s.


I also had lunch with Dick Moore not long before he died, and I
visited Moore Special Tool many times. That place is, or was, a museum
of old, masterful techniques for producing extreme accuracy with
cleverness, rather than modern opto-electronic methods.

Yes. I've read his book.

Was that _Holes, Contours and Surfaces_, or _Foundations of Mechanical
Accuracy_? They're both fascinating for those of us interested in
precision machining. Dick wrote the first one, and his son Wayne wrote
the second.

Dick also wrote some earlier books about the jig borer and another
about the jig grinder, and maybe one or two more.

You can read H,C, & S online, he

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?i...view=1up;seq=6



I still have close to 6 carats of diamond bort in olive oil, and I
have tried my hand at making diamond points. I got out a couple that
worked but I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living.

How did they make diamond points? When I google, all I get is modern
diamond turning of brittle substances, like glass, used in the optical
industry.

Take a look at the Moore book I linked to above, page 134. They call
them "diamond-charged mandrels." They also were known as "diamond
points." Also, take a look at page 187.

Moore's book was written in 1955, a time when you could buy graded
diamond grit. In the really old days, you had to make your own, as
follows:

This is a stripped-down version: Start with a quarter-carat or so of
diamond bort ("industrial diamond" -- mine are gray, smokey, and
ugly). Lay it on a hardened steel plate. Lay a piece of deerskin over
it to keep the grit from flying all over. Smash it up good with a
hammer that has a case-hardened face.

Dump the grit into a jar with a tight-fitting lid. Fill the jar to the
top with light olive oil. Screw on the cap. Shake it up. Turn the jar
upside down, so it's lying on its lid. Leave it for most of a day.

Nest day, *gently* turn the jar over. Remove the lid. Grab your
handy-dandy pipette. After a minute or so, draw off the grit on the
bottom. You won't use this; it goes back into your bort supply.

In a logarithmic time progression (I forget how long; a minute, then
maybe three minutes; then longer, etc.), draw off the grit on the
bottom and put the grit and oil into a separate, tiny jar or cup for
each draw. You'll do at least five draws, the last one being maybe an
hour or so after you started. For polishing grits, it may have to
settle all day.

Let the grit settle in each cup for hours. Then, when you're ready to
charge the mandrel, or point, draw off the grit from the appropriate
cup and deposit it on the steel block, as described in Moore's book,
above.

I did it once, around 35 years ago. I got some pretty good results and
also some points that didn't have enough diamond to cut. I also had a
couple that lost their diamond charge after less than a minute. It
takes some practice. Be glad you can buy graded grit today. g


Speaking of Moore Precision: http://www.nanotechsys.com/

I saw the prototype of their aspherical lens-turning lathe, with
single-point diamond tool, in 1980. I wasn't supposed to see it. It
was a secret project for the Navy. When they realized it, they asked
me not to write about it. This is the first time I think I've
mentioned it in print. g



Those old toolmakers needed the patience of Job and the persistance of
Sisyphus.

Scraping is that way to this day. I read that tome on reconditioning
machine tools. I've done a little.

You should have seen them scrape at Moore. They'd guarentee +/- 20
microinches corrner-to-corner on their measuring machines; +/- 50 on
their jig grinders and borers. But the scrapers usually scraped them
to +/- 20, out of pride in their work. The scrape marks were so small
they looked like speckles.


Scraping is also one of those old techniques that I roll out from time
to time - it can be the quickest way to done.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 17:11:51 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:


Surprise! _Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy_ is online as a PDF,
too:

http://tinyurl.com/kr6qyas

Too bad about the photography in the PDF. In the original, it's
gorgeous. LIFE magazine had just folded up, and Wayne got one of their
photogs to shoot the book. It's some of the best b&w industrial
photography you'll see.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:21:57 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 17:11:51 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:


Surprise! _Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy_ is online as a PDF,
too:

http://tinyurl.com/kr6qyas

Too bad about the photography in the PDF. In the original, it's
gorgeous. LIFE magazine had just folded up, and Wayne got one of their
photogs to shoot the book. It's some of the best b&w industrial
photography you'll see.

And, while we're at it, Moore's earlier book (1946) _Precision Hole
Location_. Another classic.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?i...iew=1up;seq=34

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 17:11:51 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:32:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004254M/Accurate_tool_work

-jsw


Oh, man, that's great! I had no idea that book was still available
anywhere, and there it is as a free PDF.

I read it around 40 years ago, along with all of Stanley's other
books, and the early books by Dick Moore. We had them all in the
McGraw-Hill (American Machinist) library, and I've tried several times
to find out what happened to them since M-H sold American Machinist.

Thanks, Jim. That book will be of interest to anyone who's interested
in century-old precision machining methods.

Some of which I sometimes still use, in a pinch.

I always wondered how they could make things so precisely on those
floppy old lathes et al. Turns out that our grandfathers were pretty
smart.

Joe Gwinn

It's a fascinating subject. Much of my interest in my old machine
tools (not much is left after I scrapped my 1917 mill and my 1924
surface grinder) is in learning those old techniques. That works for
me, because I inherited a lot of old accessories and a 1945 South Bend
10L, and I'm too cheap to spend a lot of money on a hobby.

My machines date from the 1960 and 1970s, although I only acquired than
in the 1990s.


I also had lunch with Dick Moore not long before he died, and I
visited Moore Special Tool many times. That place is, or was, a museum
of old, masterful techniques for producing extreme accuracy with
cleverness, rather than modern opto-electronic methods.

Yes. I've read his book.

Was that _Holes, Contours and Surfaces_, or _Foundations of Mechanical
Accuracy_? They're both fascinating for those of us interested in
precision machining. Dick wrote the first one, and his son Wayne wrote
the second.

No, it was Foundations. Never read H,C&S.


Dick also wrote some earlier books about the jig borer and another
about the jig grinder, and maybe one or two more.

You can read H,C, & S online, he

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002958893;view=1up;seq=6

I'll look into it. Thanks.


I still have close to 6 carats of diamond bort in olive oil, and I
have tried my hand at making diamond points. I got out a couple that
worked but I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living.

How did they make diamond points? When I google, all I get is modern
diamond turning of brittle substances, like glass, used in the optical
industry.

Take a look at the Moore book I linked to above, page 134. They call
them "diamond-charged mandrels." They also were known as "diamond
points." Also, take a look at page 187.

Moore's book was written in 1955, a time when you could buy graded
diamond grit. In the really old days, you had to make your own, as
follows:

This is a stripped-down version: Start with a quarter-carat or so of
diamond bort ("industrial diamond" -- mine are gray, smokey, and
ugly). Lay it on a hardened steel plate. Lay a piece of deerskin over
it to keep the grit from flying all over. Smash it up good with a
hammer that has a case-hardened face.

Dump the grit into a jar with a tight-fitting lid. Fill the jar to the
top with light olive oil. Screw on the cap. Shake it up. Turn the jar
upside down, so it's lying on its lid. Leave it for most of a day.

Nest day, *gently* turn the jar over. Remove the lid. Grab your
handy-dandy pipette. After a minute or so, draw off the grit on the
bottom. You won't use this; it goes back into your bort supply.

In a logarithmic time progression (I forget how long; a minute, then
maybe three minutes; then longer, etc.), draw off the grit on the
bottom and put the grit and oil into a separate, tiny jar or cup for
each draw. You'll do at least five draws, the last one being maybe an
hour or so after you started. For polishing grits, it may have to
settle all day.

Let the grit settle in each cup for hours. Then, when you're ready to
charge the mandrel, or point, draw off the grit from the appropriate
cup and deposit it on the steel block, as described in Moore's book,
above.

I did it once, around 35 years ago. I got some pretty good results and
also some points that didn't have enough diamond to cut. I also had a
couple that lost their diamond charge after less than a minute. It
takes some practice. Be glad you can buy graded grit today. g

I read this recipe somewhere; don't think it was Foundations.

Buying the stuff is batter for sure.


Speaking of Moore Precision: http://www.nanotechsys.com/

I saw the prototype of their aspherical lens-turning lathe, with
single-point diamond tool, in 1980. I wasn't supposed to see it. It
was a secret project for the Navy. When they realized it, they asked
me not to write about it. This is the first time I think I've
mentioned it in print. g

Well, It succeeded wildly. Used to implement lots of IR optics, where
the as-machined surface is of optical quality.

Also look at the technology paper on machining an ogive. Look like
anything familiar?


Those old toolmakers needed the patience of Job and the persistance of
Sisyphus.

Scraping is that way to this day. I read that tome on reconditioning
machine tools. I've done a little.

You should have seen them scrape at Moore. They'd guarentee +/- 20
microinches corner-to-corner on their measuring machines; +/- 50 on
their jig grinders and borers. But the scrapers usually scraped them
to +/- 20, out of pride in their work. The scrape marks were so small
they looked like speckles.

I think that the kind of people that can do this have exactly one speed
- very slow, very careful. Must drive people crazy, waiting for those
sentences to complete.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:03:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 17:11:51 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:32:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:51:37 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
wrote:

In rec.crafts.metalworking, Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates
the metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what
they had
hundreds of years ago? There was no onlinemetals.com. How did one
source
brass sheet or even get it to uniform thickness?

This is covered (lightly perhaps, but covered) in the history of
timekeeping _Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern
World_
by David S. Landes. It starts with sundials and ends just as quartz
watches are becoming cheap. The problem of making exact and uniform
parts is a vexing one for people interested in making accurate or
complex timepieces.

Elijah
------
the differences between stationary and mobile timepieces is another
problem

There's a related story, more closely related to the the engine
lathes
and other machine tools most of us own or use, that produced the
very
highest level of toolmaking: The making of drill jigs for watches
and
clocks.

Over a century ago, the top-end toolmakers who made these things
could
produce jigs with X-Y positional acccuracy on the order of 50
microinches (half of a "tenth"). This is about the limit for
advanced
machining today.

The drill jigs were produced in three levels of utility, which
weren't
necessarily levels of accuracy. There were the production jigs, used
for guiding the drills and reamers used to make the actual clock and
watch parts; master jigs, which were the working standards from
which
the working jigs were copied; and the "master plate," which was kept
in a safe and used only as a gage standard for checking the master
jigs.

Until Dick Moore created his jig borer, they were made on lathes,
with
faceplates and toolmaker's buttons, and then internally ground with
handmade diamond "points" mounted in an internal toolpost grinder.
The
steps and the amount of work that went into all of this was almost
beyond belief by today's commercial standards.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is the book describing those methods:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7004254M/Accurate_tool_work

-jsw


Oh, man, that's great! I had no idea that book was still available
anywhere, and there it is as a free PDF.

I read it around 40 years ago, along with all of Stanley's other
books, and the early books by Dick Moore. We had them all in the
McGraw-Hill (American Machinist) library, and I've tried several times
to find out what happened to them since M-H sold American Machinist.

Thanks, Jim. That book will be of interest to anyone who's interested
in century-old precision machining methods.

Some of which I sometimes still use, in a pinch.

I always wondered how they could make things so precisely on those
floppy old lathes et al. Turns out that our grandfathers were pretty
smart.

Joe Gwinn

It's a fascinating subject. Much of my interest in my old machine
tools (not much is left after I scrapped my 1917 mill and my 1924
surface grinder) is in learning those old techniques. That works for
me, because I inherited a lot of old accessories and a 1945 South Bend
10L, and I'm too cheap to spend a lot of money on a hobby.

My machines date from the 1960 and 1970s, although I only acquired than
in the 1990s.


I also had lunch with Dick Moore not long before he died, and I
visited Moore Special Tool many times. That place is, or was, a museum
of old, masterful techniques for producing extreme accuracy with
cleverness, rather than modern opto-electronic methods.

Yes. I've read his book.

Was that _Holes, Contours and Surfaces_, or _Foundations of Mechanical
Accuracy_? They're both fascinating for those of us interested in
precision machining. Dick wrote the first one, and his son Wayne wrote
the second.

No, it was Foundations. Never read H,C&S.


Dick also wrote some earlier books about the jig borer and another
about the jig grinder, and maybe one or two more.

You can read H,C, & S online, he

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002958893;view=1up;seq=6

I'll look into it. Thanks.


I still have close to 6 carats of diamond bort in olive oil, and I
have tried my hand at making diamond points. I got out a couple that
worked but I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living.

How did they make diamond points? When I google, all I get is modern
diamond turning of brittle substances, like glass, used in the optical
industry.

Take a look at the Moore book I linked to above, page 134. They call
them "diamond-charged mandrels." They also were known as "diamond
points." Also, take a look at page 187.

Moore's book was written in 1955, a time when you could buy graded
diamond grit. In the really old days, you had to make your own, as
follows:

This is a stripped-down version: Start with a quarter-carat or so of
diamond bort ("industrial diamond" -- mine are gray, smokey, and
ugly). Lay it on a hardened steel plate. Lay a piece of deerskin over
it to keep the grit from flying all over. Smash it up good with a
hammer that has a case-hardened face.

Dump the grit into a jar with a tight-fitting lid. Fill the jar to the
top with light olive oil. Screw on the cap. Shake it up. Turn the jar
upside down, so it's lying on its lid. Leave it for most of a day.

Nest day, *gently* turn the jar over. Remove the lid. Grab your
handy-dandy pipette. After a minute or so, draw off the grit on the
bottom. You won't use this; it goes back into your bort supply.

In a logarithmic time progression (I forget how long; a minute, then
maybe three minutes; then longer, etc.), draw off the grit on the
bottom and put the grit and oil into a separate, tiny jar or cup for
each draw. You'll do at least five draws, the last one being maybe an
hour or so after you started. For polishing grits, it may have to
settle all day.

Let the grit settle in each cup for hours. Then, when you're ready to
charge the mandrel, or point, draw off the grit from the appropriate
cup and deposit it on the steel block, as described in Moore's book,
above.

I did it once, around 35 years ago. I got some pretty good results and
also some points that didn't have enough diamond to cut. I also had a
couple that lost their diamond charge after less than a minute. It
takes some practice. Be glad you can buy graded grit today. g

I read this recipe somewhere; don't think it was Foundations.

Buying the stuff is batter for sure.


Speaking of Moore Precision: http://www.nanotechsys.com/

I saw the prototype of their aspherical lens-turning lathe, with
single-point diamond tool, in 1980. I wasn't supposed to see it. It
was a secret project for the Navy. When they realized it, they asked
me not to write about it. This is the first time I think I've
mentioned it in print. g

Well, It succeeded wildly. Used to implement lots of IR optics, where
the as-machined surface is of optical quality.

Also look at the technology paper on machining an ogive. Look like
anything familiar?


It's some kind of rocket nose cone, but should I recognize anything
else?




Those old toolmakers needed the patience of Job and the persistance of
Sisyphus.

Scraping is that way to this day. I read that tome on reconditioning
machine tools. I've done a little.

You should have seen them scrape at Moore. They'd guarentee +/- 20
microinches corner-to-corner on their measuring machines; +/- 50 on
their jig grinders and borers. But the scrapers usually scraped them
to +/- 20, out of pride in their work. The scrape marks were so small
they looked like speckles.

I think that the kind of people that can do this have exactly one speed
- very slow, very careful. Must drive people crazy, waiting for those
sentences to complete.

Joe Gwinn

They're a special breed. Towards the end of Moore's traditional
manufacturing, Wayne told me they were doing better hiring women as
scrapers. They had more patience.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/9/2015 7:32 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I also had lunch with Dick Moore not long before he died, and I
visited Moore Special Tool many times. That place is, or was, a museum
of old, masterful techniques for producing extreme accuracy with
cleverness, rather than modern opto-electronic methods.

I have Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy and Holes, Contours, and
Surfaces. Both are fascinating reading. Would love to have toured the
factory pre-CNC.

Jon

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:03:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:


[big snip]


I [Ed] still have close to 6 carats of diamond bort in olive oil, and I
have tried my hand at making diamond points. I got out a couple that
worked but I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living.

How did they make diamond points? When I google, all I get is modern
diamond turning of brittle substances, like glass, used in the optical
industry.

Take a look at the Moore book I linked to above, page 134. They call
them "diamond-charged mandrels." They also were known as "diamond
points." Also, take a look at page 187.

Moore's book was written in 1955, a time when you could buy graded
diamond grit. In the really old days, you had to make your own, as
follows:

This is a stripped-down version: Start with a quarter-carat or so of
diamond bort ("industrial diamond" -- mine are gray, smokey, and
ugly). Lay it on a hardened steel plate. Lay a piece of deerskin over
it to keep the grit from flying all over. Smash it up good with a
hammer that has a case-hardened face.

Dump the grit into a jar with a tight-fitting lid. Fill the jar to the
top with light olive oil. Screw on the cap. Shake it up. Turn the jar
upside down, so it's lying on its lid. Leave it for most of a day.

Nest day, *gently* turn the jar over. Remove the lid. Grab your
handy-dandy pipette. After a minute or so, draw off the grit on the
bottom. You won't use this; it goes back into your bort supply.

In a logarithmic time progression (I forget how long; a minute, then
maybe three minutes; then longer, etc.), draw off the grit on the
bottom and put the grit and oil into a separate, tiny jar or cup for
each draw. You'll do at least five draws, the last one being maybe an
hour or so after you started. For polishing grits, it may have to
settle all day.

Let the grit settle in each cup for hours. Then, when you're ready to
charge the mandrel, or point, draw off the grit from the appropriate
cup and deposit it on the steel block, as described in Moore's book,
above.

I did it once, around 35 years ago. I got some pretty good results and
also some points that didn't have enough diamond to cut. I also had a
couple that lost their diamond charge after less than a minute. It
takes some practice. Be glad you can buy graded grit today. g

I read this recipe somewhere; don't think it was Foundations.

Buying the stuff is batter for sure.


Speaking of Moore Precision: http://www.nanotechsys.com/

I saw the prototype of their aspherical lens-turning lathe, with
single-point diamond tool, in 1980. I wasn't supposed to see it. It
was a secret project for the Navy. When they realized it, they asked
me not to write about it. This is the first time I think I've
mentioned it in print. g

Well, It succeeded wildly. Used to implement lots of IR optics, where
the as-machined surface is of optical quality.

Also look at the technology paper on machining an ogive. Look like
anything familiar?


It's some kind of rocket nose cone, but should I recognize anything
else?

That's right. It's going to be for some kind of IR-guided missile
(from the optical quality), probably air-launched (from the size). Or,
I suppose there could be a millimeter-wave seeker in there.


Those old toolmakers needed the patience of Job and the persistance of
Sisyphus.

Scraping is that way to this day. I read that tome on reconditioning
machine tools. I've done a little.

You should have seen them scrape at Moore. They'd guarentee +/- 20
microinches corner-to-corner on their measuring machines; +/- 50 on
their jig grinders and borers. But the scrapers usually scraped them
to +/- 20, out of pride in their work. The scrape marks were so small
they looked like speckles.

I think that the kind of people that can do this have exactly one speed
- very slow, very careful. Must drive people crazy, waiting for those
sentences to complete.

Joe Gwinn

They're a special breed. Towards the end of Moore's traditional
manufacturing, Wayne told me they were doing better hiring women as
scrapers. They had more patience.

This makes sense. I found a photo on the web somewhere of 9-year-old
girl diligently scraping a cast-iron flat (looked to be a meter
square). Turns out she is the daughter of the founder of a German
mechanical company. Learning the trade, from the bottom up one
supposes. She was fully absorbed in the scraping.

Joe Gwinn

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:21:57 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 17:11:51 -0500, Joe Gwinn
wrote:


Surprise! _Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy_ is online as a PDF,
too:

http://tinyurl.com/kr6qyas

Too bad about the photography in the PDF. In the original, it's
gorgeous. LIFE magazine had just folded up, and Wayne got one of their
photogs to shoot the book. It's some of the best b&w industrial
photography you'll see.

And, while we're at it, Moore's earlier book (1946) _Precision Hole
Location_. Another classic.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89089664023;view=1up;seq=34

Thanks. I'll read it.

Joe Gwinn

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 9:18:22 AM UTC-5, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:42:12 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jon Anderson wrote:
.........
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates the
metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what they
had
hundreds of years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_drill

The drill bit is flattened on the end like a modern spade bit, and may
cut in one or both directions. I made a pump drill to use carbide
circuit board bits when the company's Dremel was broken.

Brown and Sharpe's original milling machine mechanized the manufacture
of precision twist drills for mass production during the US Civil War.
Previously the flutes had been filed.

The "D" bit is an easier alternate shape that works very well, though
it cuts slower than a twist drill:
http://www.machineconcepts.co.uk/smallpipes/tools.htm

It can drill or ream tapered as well as round holes, for example
ancient Roman faucet stopcocks, perhaps the earliest accurately round
and closely fitted shafts and bores.
http://www.theplumber.com/pom.html
"Rome's public baths featured silver faucets, and there is no reason
to assume otherwise in Pompeii.

" lead pipes and lead fixtures for water channels of ancient Rome"

http://www.therooterdrainexpert.com/..._Plumbing.html

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 2:00:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 9:18:22 AM UTC-5, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:42:12 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jon Anderson wrote:
.........
I want to know how they made parts back then. This all predates the
metric
system, and even the customary units used today. What did
machinists even
use back then? How to dollar store drill bits stack up to what they
had
hundreds of years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_drill

The drill bit is flattened on the end like a modern spade bit, and may
cut in one or both directions. I made a pump drill to use carbide
circuit board bits when the company's Dremel was broken.

Brown and Sharpe's original milling machine mechanized the manufacture
of precision twist drills for mass production during the US Civil War.
Previously the flutes had been filed.

The "D" bit is an easier alternate shape that works very well, though
it cuts slower than a twist drill:
http://www.machineconcepts.co.uk/smallpipes/tools.htm

It can drill or ream tapered as well as round holes, for example
ancient Roman faucet stopcocks, perhaps the earliest accurately round
and closely fitted shafts and bores.
http://www.theplumber.com/pom.html
"Rome's public baths featured silver faucets, and there is no reason
to assume otherwise in Pompeii.

" lead pipes and lead fixtures for water channels of ancient Rome"

http://www.therooterdrainexpert.com/..._Plumbing.html

"In Latin plumber is "plumbarius" which was used to described someone whose work was to take care of the lead pipes and lead fixtures for water channels of ancient Rome. The word "plumbers" has Latin roots, from plumbus meaning lead . On the other hand the word "lead" has many possible roots, most likely from the West Germanic word "loudhom", but there are more stem words which are perfect candidates from Celtics languages and other Indo-European Languages. "

(that's the full quote)

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 19:44:17 +1100, Jon Anderson
wrote:

On 2/9/2015 7:32 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I also had lunch with Dick Moore not long before he died, and I
visited Moore Special Tool many times. That place is, or was, a museum
of old, masterful techniques for producing extreme accuracy with
cleverness, rather than modern opto-electronic methods.

I have Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy and Holes, Contours, and
Surfaces. Both are fascinating reading. Would love to have toured the
factory pre-CNC.

The photos in _Foundations..._ give you a pretty good representation
of what went on there.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/10/2015 7:22 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

The photos in _Foundations..._ give you a pretty good representation
of what went on there.

The photos are excellent, but, not as good as seeing the real thing!

Jon