This isn't a posting about a problem. It's a posting about how I think.
I had a problem with one of my machines. I couldn't figure out what to do
about it. After a couple of days worrying away at it I got the idea to
write it up like a posting to this NG and then put it down and read it
fresh the next morning. Sure enough, when I read it like the problem came
from someone else, laid out clearly just the way I like it, the solution
immediately came to me!

I think better when faced with a problem which is written out logically.
This is what happens when you take a guy whose background is mathematics
and electrical engineering, with a lifetime of education, and put him in
a machine shop. I bet if I'd started out as a machinist's apprentice when
I was 18, at my now-ripe-old-age of 51, I'd think better when presented
with a problem on the fly, on my feet, in the shop.

Go figger.

Grant Erwin

Grant Erwin wrote:
(Snip)
...Sure enough, when I read it like the problem came from someone else,
laid out clearly just the way I like it, the solution immediately came
to me!

After I have accurate answers for 'Who', 'What', 'Where', 'Why', 'When'
and 'How Much', a solution generally pops right out. It takes discipline
to step away from the problem to do the homework, though.

Are you going to share the problem and solution?

--Winston

Winston wrote:
Grant Erwin wrote:

(Snip)

...Sure enough, when I read it like the problem came from someone else,
laid out clearly just the way I like it, the solution immediately came
to me!

After I have accurate answers for 'Who', 'What', 'Where', 'Why', 'When'
and 'How Much', a solution generally pops right out. It takes discipline
to step away from the problem to do the homework, though.

Are you going to share the problem and solution?

Oh, the problem isn't much. The fixed jaw on the chuck on my little die
filer was boogered, so it wasn't possible to chuck a file so it was
parallel to the axis of the file rod. Probably improperly hardened followed
by many years of cranking a hardened file in there. Anyway, I figured I'd
machine off about 1/16" accurately (either by milling or grinding) and then
make up a hardened and ground shim which would lay against the fixed jaw
and allow correct clamping of a file. I was trying to figure out how to
accurately remove and replace hardened material, that's where I got stuck.

Grant

Grant Erwin wrote:
Winston wrote:

Grant Erwin wrote:

(Snip)


...Sure enough, when I read it like the problem came from someone
else,
laid out clearly just the way I like it, the solution immediately came
to me!

After I have accurate answers for 'Who', 'What', 'Where', 'Why', 'When'
and 'How Much', a solution generally pops right out. It takes discipline
to step away from the problem to do the homework, though.

Are you going to share the problem and solution?


Oh, the problem isn't much. The fixed jaw on the chuck on my little die
filer was boogered, so it wasn't possible to chuck a file so it was
parallel to the axis of the file rod. Probably improperly hardened followed
by many years of cranking a hardened file in there. Anyway, I figured I'd
machine off about 1/16" accurately (either by milling or grinding) and then
make up a hardened and ground shim which would lay against the fixed jaw
and allow correct clamping of a file. I was trying to figure out how to
accurately remove and replace hardened material, that's where I got stuck.

Grant

Interesting problem. My first guess involved a lot of repeated operations.

How did you solve it?

--Winston

Winston wrote:

Grant Erwin wrote:

Winston wrote:

Grant Erwin wrote:

(Snip)



...Sure enough, when I read it like the problem came from someone
else,
laid out clearly just the way I like it, the solution immediately
came
to me!

After I have accurate answers for 'Who', 'What', 'Where', 'Why', 'When'
and 'How Much', a solution generally pops right out. It takes discipline
to step away from the problem to do the homework, though.

Are you going to share the problem and solution?

Oh, the problem isn't much. The fixed jaw on the chuck on my little die
filer was boogered, so it wasn't possible to chuck a file so it was
parallel to the axis of the file rod. Probably improperly hardened
followed
by many years of cranking a hardened file in there. Anyway, I figured I'd
machine off about 1/16" accurately (either by milling or grinding) and
then
make up a hardened and ground shim which would lay against the fixed jaw
and allow correct clamping of a file. I was trying to figure out how to
accurately remove and replace hardened material, that's where I got
stuck.

Grant


Interesting problem. My first guess involved a lot of repeated operations.

How did you solve it?

I haven't yet. I'm going to do what I came up with above, i.e. grind away
a bit of the fixed jaw and make up a hardened shim to replace it. The shim
will be held securely in place by the movable jaw of the chuck. This may not
work well for some reason as yet unknown, and I may just make an entire new
file rod which is bored at the end to receive 3/8" round file shanks, and
then make up 3/8" round shanks for my parallel files, using the method
described by Andy Lofquist with his MLA die filers.

Grant

You don't have to write it down, although sketching out the problem
can sometimes make a problem clear if geometry is involved. Usually,
just talking to someone else helps you frame the issue. The other
person often doesn't have to say a thing, but by the time you're done,
you have a solution. Talking or writing helps us put a logical story
together, and in the process we find the missing step that produces
the solution.

The other half of your observation - that you 'worried' about your
problem for a few days is consistent with what many people have seen
in how they solve problems. My idea is that the brain needs a few
days to find connections or try out a few options. Invention is
rarely out of the blue, but from someone who's thought about it for a
long time, but not continuously. It also helps if you know the
subject very well, but not neccesarily in an intellectual way.

An extension of this idea is that if you really want to learn a
subject, try teaching it.

There are also people who are best described by the phrase, "I don't
know what I'm thinking because I haven't said it yet".


Bruce



Grant Erwin wrote in message ...
This isn't a posting about a problem. It's a posting about how I think.
I had a problem with one of my machines. I couldn't figure out what to do
about it. After a couple of days worrying away at it I got the idea to
write it up like a posting to this NG and then put it down and read it
fresh the next morning. Sure enough, when I read it like the problem came
from someone else, laid out clearly just the way I like it, the solution
immediately came to me!

I think better when faced with a problem which is written out logically.
This is what happens when you take a guy whose background is mathematics
and electrical engineering, with a lifetime of education, and put him in
a machine shop. I bet if I'd started out as a machinist's apprentice when
I was 18, at my now-ripe-old-age of 51, I'd think better when presented
with a problem on the fly, on my feet, in the shop.

Go figger.

Grant Erwin

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
This isn't a posting about a problem. It's a posting about how I think.
I had a problem with one of my machines. I couldn't figure out what to do
about it. After a couple of days worrying away at it I got the idea to
write it up like a posting to this NG and then put it down and read it
fresh the next morning. Sure enough, when I read it like the problem came
from someone else, laid out clearly just the way I like it, the solution
immediately came to me!

I think better when faced with a problem which is written out logically.
This is what happens when you take a guy whose background is mathematics
and electrical engineering, with a lifetime of education, and put him in
a machine shop. I bet if I'd started out as a machinist's apprentice when
I was 18, at my now-ripe-old-age of 51, I'd think better when presented
with a problem on the fly, on my feet, in the shop.

Go figger.

Grant Erwin


I think it is like the old right brain left brain concept. You can't think
and create at the same time because thinking is logical and creativity is
not. One or the other is switched on. That is why there are so many AHA!
moments at 2 AM, in the shower, while driving, etc. When you quit thinking
about the answer, it pops up like a balloon from under water.

STeve

I can recall two experiences that relate to this discussion, each in its own
way. I was working as a technician, at a customer's site, and having
trouble diagnosing a problem. My backup was a specialist, available on the
phone. So, finally, in desperation, I went to the phone to call him.
Before I started dialing, I realized that there were certain questions he
was going to ask me, so I mentally organized my answers. Each answer led to
another question, and by the time I have all the information ready to give
him, I realized that I did not have to make the call. Just organizing my
thinking in that way helped me solve the problem.

The other one was more mysterious. I went home with an unsolved problem,
dreading the fact that I would have to go back the next day and continue my
frustration. That night I had a dream that contained the solution to the
problem. I went back the next morning--took one look, and the dreamed
solution turned out be be correct.

Interesting, Grant! I have similar background, use a slightly
different approach though the underlying processes may be similar.

Sit rep: after consulting with Ernie, a Millermatic 210 MIG machine
followed me home last week. I've had a Lincoln SP125 small MIG for
years that works beautifully with sheetmetal, so I thought I knew how
to MIG weld. WRONG-O!

Current project is mostly fillet welds with 1/8" wall thickness steel
rectangular tubing and angle, easy peasy with stick. Built lotsa
stuff like that with a buzzbox and 7014. I was gonna stickweld this
project but then....

I had a windfall patent check in my jeans and my attitude has always
been to blow those on toys as quickly and frivolously as possible --
welcome to your new home, Mr. Mller 210.

I got servicable(?) welds at first but I was not at all satisfied
with them. Ugly! Ernie had endorsed the 210 as an "excellent
machine" so I was sure that the fault had to be mine. (It was.)

I bought the MIller MIG book, paperback, $28. MIG for dummies.
Miller could use an EE proofreader, but it's a welding book so
nevermind that. I read the book from cover to cover in one sitting.
I didn't just read it, I studied it. I learned that MIG ain't as
simple as it looks. There are a lot of variables with various
interdependencies that aren't always obvious and are sometimes even
counterintuitive.

I then let things ferment for two full days without touching the
machine, to let the subconscious do what it does however it does it.

When I again approached the machine I found that I did so with
considerably more confidence and a better understanding of what I
might do beyond set the dials per the chart, cross my fingers and have
at it.

I dialled my mask back to shade 9 because I realized that I hadn't
been seeing the puddle. I bumped the voltage up one click from the
chart setting and I knew why I was doing that. I clipped the
stickout to a short 3/8" and proceeded with the gun angled so it
pointed in the direction of progress -- and I knew why I was doing
those things too.

It worked first try! I got very nice flat fillet beautywelds just
like the samples in the welding store. YAY!

----

One thing I learned that I found useful, YMMV: With gas (O/A) and
TIG I can manage the puddle, controlling heat input independent of
rate of filler metal deposition including zero deposition rate. With
stick I sorta manage the puddle because I usually run the rod at
whatever current it likes best so operator input is to drive the
puddle.

With MIG there are more variables: stickout, voltage, and current
which is essentially wirefeed rate for given wire size. I think with
MIG I respond to the puddle more than managing it. The voltage and
wirefeed rate are set before the mask goes down and the trigger is
pulled. After that, all I can do is steer -- and it's a bit hairy at
first because things go fast. It sure is fun when ya get it right!

I've found distortion to be less of an issue with MIG than with stick
though minimizing it still requires some planning and jigging.
The L-shaped cantilever workbench supports I'm making are so far
coming out very nearly blackout square, 3 out of 5 done. No
spatter, no smoke, no slag-removal, no grinding, no mess and no
hydraulic tweaking to square. I think Mr. Miller210 and I might
become good friends bye and bye.






On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:32:03 -0700, Grant Erwin
wrote:

This isn't a posting about a problem. It's a posting about how I think.
I had a problem with one of my machines. I couldn't figure out what to do
about it. After a couple of days worrying away at it I got the idea to
write it up like a posting to this NG and then put it down and read it
fresh the next morning. Sure enough, when I read it like the problem came
from someone else, laid out clearly just the way I like it, the solution
immediately came to me!

I think better when faced with a problem which is written out logically.
This is what happens when you take a guy whose background is mathematics
and electrical engineering, with a lifetime of education, and put him in
a machine shop. I bet if I'd started out as a machinist's apprentice when
I was 18, at my now-ripe-old-age of 51, I'd think better when presented
with a problem on the fly, on my feet, in the shop.

Go figger.

Grant Erwin

You might grind a shim out of HSS (piece of lathe bit) and
silver-braze it in place -- or silverbraze it in place and then grind
to dimension and shape.

HSS doesn't seem to lose any hardness from the heat of silverbrazing.
That isn't based on any measurement, but cutting tools I've made
that way seem to keep an edge as well as unbrazed ones do.

Carbide can be silverbrazed also, but it might be too brittle for your
purpose.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:44:35 -0700, Grant Erwin
wrote:

I haven't yet. I'm going to do what I came up with above, i.e. grind away
a bit of the fixed jaw and make up a hardened shim to replace it. The shim
will be held securely in place by the movable jaw of the chuck. This may not
work well for some reason as yet unknown, and I may just make an entire new
file rod which is bored at the end to receive 3/8" round file shanks, and
then make up 3/8" round shanks for my parallel files, using the method
described by Andy Lofquist with his MLA die filers.

Grant

Don Foreman wrote:

You might grind a shim out of HSS (piece of lathe bit) and
silver-braze it in place -- or silverbraze it in place and then grind
to dimension and shape.

HSS doesn't seem to lose any hardness from the heat of silverbrazing.
That isn't based on any measurement, but cutting tools I've made
that way seem to keep an edge as well as unbrazed ones do.

I thought about that, Don. It seems easy enough to mill out a little bit
of O1, leaving maybe .015" tolerance, harden it, temper it, and grind it
dead flat on the surface grinder, though. If I decide to permanently
attach the shim to the fixed jaw I'll try brazing it although every time
I try brazing it seems to fail miserably.

Grant

Don Foreman wrote:
Interesting, Grant! I have similar background, use a slightly
different approach though the underlying processes may be similar.

Sit rep: after consulting with Ernie, a Millermatic 210 MIG machine
followed me home last week. I've had a Lincoln SP125 small MIG for
years that works beautifully with sheetmetal, so I thought I knew how
to MIG weld. WRONG-O!

Current project is mostly fillet welds with 1/8" wall thickness steel
rectangular tubing and angle, easy peasy with stick. Built lotsa
stuff like that with a buzzbox and 7014. I was gonna stickweld this
project but then....

I had a windfall patent check in my jeans and my attitude has always
been to blow those on toys as quickly and frivolously as possible --
welcome to your new home, Mr. Mller 210.

I got servicable(?) welds at first but I was not at all satisfied
with them. Ugly! Ernie had endorsed the 210 as an "excellent
machine" so I was sure that the fault had to be mine. (It was.)

I bought the MIller MIG book, paperback, $28. MIG for dummies.
Miller could use an EE proofreader, but it's a welding book so
nevermind that. I read the book from cover to cover in one sitting.
I didn't just read it, I studied it. I learned that MIG ain't as
simple as it looks. There are a lot of variables with various
interdependencies that aren't always obvious and are sometimes even
counterintuitive.

I then let things ferment for two full days without touching the
machine, to let the subconscious do what it does however it does it.

When I again approached the machine I found that I did so with
considerably more confidence and a better understanding of what I
might do beyond set the dials per the chart, cross my fingers and have
at it.

I dialled my mask back to shade 9 because I realized that I hadn't
been seeing the puddle. I bumped the voltage up one click from the
chart setting and I knew why I was doing that. I clipped the
stickout to a short 3/8" and proceeded with the gun angled so it
pointed in the direction of progress -- and I knew why I was doing
those things too.

It worked first try! I got very nice flat fillet beautywelds just
like the samples in the welding store. YAY!

----

One thing I learned that I found useful, YMMV: With gas (O/A) and
TIG I can manage the puddle, controlling heat input independent of
rate of filler metal deposition including zero deposition rate. With
stick I sorta manage the puddle because I usually run the rod at
whatever current it likes best so operator input is to drive the
puddle.

With MIG there are more variables: stickout, voltage, and current
which is essentially wirefeed rate for given wire size. I think with
MIG I respond to the puddle more than managing it. The voltage and
wirefeed rate are set before the mask goes down and the trigger is
pulled. After that, all I can do is steer -- and it's a bit hairy at
first because things go fast. It sure is fun when ya get it right!

I've found distortion to be less of an issue with MIG than with stick
though minimizing it still requires some planning and jigging.
The L-shaped cantilever workbench supports I'm making are so far
coming out very nearly blackout square, 3 out of 5 done. No
spatter, no smoke, no slag-removal, no grinding, no mess and no
hydraulic tweaking to square. I think Mr. Miller210 and I might
become good friends bye and bye.






On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:32:03 -0700, Grant Erwin
wrote:


This isn't a posting about a problem. It's a posting about how I think.
I had a problem with one of my machines. I couldn't figure out what to do
about it. After a couple of days worrying away at it I got the idea to
write it up like a posting to this NG and then put it down and read it
fresh the next morning. Sure enough, when I read it like the problem came

from someone else, laid out clearly just the way I like it, the solution

immediately came to me!

I think better when faced with a problem which is written out logically.
This is what happens when you take a guy whose background is mathematics
and electrical engineering, with a lifetime of education, and put him in
a machine shop. I bet if I'd started out as a machinist's apprentice when
I was 18, at my now-ripe-old-age of 51, I'd think better when presented
with a problem on the fly, on my feet, in the shop.

Go figger.

Grant Erwin


Good to hear youve made good progress with your mig welding.
Anychance of some info from you? what gas are you using?
Here weve used co2 and results are sort of ok. However having tried
co2 argon mix the results are so much better.
Have you tried this gas mix?
Ted Frater Dorset UK.

Yes. I'm running 25% CO2 75% argon, .030 wire. I've read that
CO2 runs "hotter" and gives more penetration, but I suspect that may
depend on the machine. I note, for example, that the chart for the
Lincoln SP125 indicates it can do thicker stock with mixed gas than it
can with CO2. I've not tried CO2 with it, but I've otherwise found
that chart to be good guidance.

I used to do some autobody work (rustwork) with the SP125 and mixed
gas. I can attest that making buttwelds in 24 gage steel is no
problem with that box and mixed gas, have read that CO2 runs too hot
and burns thru. I was getting good results so I didn't bother
exploring that further....

TheMiller 210 works way far better than the little box on material
1/8" and thicker. That isn't to say that such work can't be done
with a smaller machine; it definitely can. However, I must say that
I feel a great deal more confident about welds made in thicker
material with the Miller 210. No, my SP125 is not for sale, not
ever! It works sweet magic on thin sheetmetal.

The mixed gas seems to be working nicely. I'm now getting welds
that are both sound and satisfactorily "pretty". I think they're
sound because on part of a job I did today, angle joined to
rectangular tubing to provide a mounting flange, I ground the slight
overburden on the top welds flat to surface. The welds
disappeared. All I saw was continuous shiney metal like the angle
and rectangular tube had been extruded or something as one piece.
I'm no pro welder, but that works for me!

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 22:18:04 GMT, Ted Frater wrote:
Good to hear youve made good progress with your mig welding.
Anychance of some info from you? what gas are you using?
Here weve used co2 and results are sort of ok. However having tried
co2 argon mix the results are so much better.
Have you tried this gas mix?
Ted Frater Dorset UK.