On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:57:55 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:35:40 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

You serious? Chicago Pneumatic are crap?




Hey Nick,

I think Chicago Pneumatic (**CP** brand ) are excellent. But you have
to be careful now-a-days about "brands". I see that there are many
air tools sold that have the brand Chicago Power (sound like--sort of)
or something similar, and they are POOR clones of the original CP
stuff. Just trading on the "a little knowledge" trait of some
buyers!!

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:58 -0800, Winston
wrote:


My Chicago Pneumatic impact wrench was completely defeated by auto lug nuts.
It would make all the right noises, but even when it was turned up
'all the way', it couldn't break loose the least of them.

I would sigh heavily and break the nuts loose with a moderate sized
breaker bar.

Finally tossed the thing.

YMMV

--Winston
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Hey Winston,

Wish you had tossed it my way. They are good tools. Must have been a
problem with it.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:27:25 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:06:08 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Gunner wrote:

(Snip Winston whining about cheap air impact wrench)

My rebuilt Ingersoll Rand 1/2" is often defeated by lug nuts.

OK. What ft/lb rating is the IR one, Gunner?

No idea. But Ill check this weekend.

Gunner


Dogs are better than people.

People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And
then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most
of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a
headache.........



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:11:13 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:11:12 -0600, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
Gonna fill it with sand and set the anvil on top of the sand?
Marvelous idea actually. Very good!

Works wonderfully for my 7" length of rail road set on a 5-gallon pail of
sand.


I just wish railroads were thicker, wider and heavier...

Tim

I was given some rail a while back that is about 1/3 bigger in all
dimensions than normal rail. I put it on my welding table.

No idea of what it came from.

Gunner


About a month ago my wife was surfing her horse sites and found a
beautiful little foxtrotter filly that would grow to about 14.2 hands.
Perfect she thought to pull her cart.
"Why dont you just train one of our horses to the cart?" I ask.

"Ours are too big, we need a small horse to fit it, besides the wheels
are too close together to be stable with a large horse."

So I did some surfing of my own, thinking I would just make our shafts
fit our gelding and extend the wheels out some. While searching for
standard measurements, I ran across this possible myth (on some other
site though) :
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/railwidth.htm

I live in a very rural setting, off the grid, but near tracks. The RR
has kindly provided me with lots of useful "scrap".

Brian Lawson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:58 -0800, Winston
wrote:


My Chicago Pneumatic impact wrench was completely defeated by auto lug nuts.
It would make all the right noises, but even when it was turned up
'all the way', it couldn't break loose the least of them.

I would sigh heavily and break the nuts loose with a moderate sized
breaker bar.

Finally tossed the thing.

YMMV

--Winston

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Hey Winston,

Wish you had tossed it my way. They are good tools. Must have been a
problem with it.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.

You would have been welcome to it, Brian.
I expect it could have been used for other stuff but I only had one
reason to own the thing. And it couldn't do that.

--Winston

Old Nick wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:06:08 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Gunner wrote:

(Snip Winston whining about cheap air impact wrench)

My rebuilt Ingersoll Rand 1/2" is often defeated by lug nuts.

That is wierd. The guys installing wheels can get the nuts tight
enough to require a breaker bar *and* cheater.

They must be using an uber wrench.

Well I am regularly seeing 500lb and even 1000lb ones for sale in the
papers, but they're 3/4 drive. Maybe 350 is just not enough.

350 is probably *plenty*, if they are real pounds instead of Sears pounds.
350 ft. lbs would spin off lug nuts easily.

Back of envelope arithmetic:
Distance from center of spindle to end of handgrip ~0.7 ft.
(350 ft. lb. of torque) / 0.7' = 500 lbs. of force to counteract.
The wrench I owned wasn't supplying that kind of force to my hands even
on a good day. More like 20 lbs. of force to counteract. On a good day.

So, no more than ~14 ft. lbs. of torque at the spindle. Heck, the torque
spec on my lug nuts is more like 70 ft. lbs.

No wonder it didn't work.

As Brian said, my wrench was probably a cheap knockoff of the real Chicago
Pneumatic brand. I got that for which I paid, unfortunately.

--Winston

Brian Lawson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:58 -0800, Winston
wrote:


My Chicago Pneumatic impact wrench was completely defeated by auto lug nuts.
It would make all the right noises, but even when it was turned up
'all the way', it couldn't break loose the least of them.

I would sigh heavily and break the nuts loose with a moderate sized
breaker bar.

Finally tossed the thing.

YMMV

--Winston

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Hey Winston,

Wish you had tossed it my way. They are good tools. Must have been a
problem with it.

You are probably right, Brian.
It wasn't priced like a quality tool, so it probably was a 'knockoff'.

Lesson learned.

--Winston

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:41:48 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I am not sure we are seeing Sear's ftlbs. initially, I felt the same
as your thoughts that the 350ftlbs at the wrench would translate to
500 lbs of force at the handle. But if this followed, then no imnpact
wrench worth crap would be _usable_, because it would simply rip out
of your hand. I think there must be an impact level of 350 ft lbs. So
measuring this is going to be extremnely difficult, using expected
torques on the handle. It will be for a very short time.

AFAIK, mine is NOT a cheap knockoff. Given that I see 100ftlb machines
for sale, I simply wonder if 350ft lbs is simply yhe baby of the lot,
and not very heavy duty.


350 is probably *plenty*, if they are real pounds instead of Sears pounds.
350 ft. lbs would spin off lug nuts easily.

Back of envelope arithmetic:
Distance from center of spindle to end of handgrip ~0.7 ft.
(350 ft. lb. of torque) / 0.7' = 500 lbs. of force to counteract.
The wrench I owned wasn't supplying that kind of force to my hands even
on a good day. More like 20 lbs. of force to counteract. On a good day.

So, no more than ~14 ft. lbs. of torque at the spindle. Heck, the torque
spec on my lug nuts is more like 70 ft. lbs.

No wonder it didn't work.

As Brian said, my wrench was probably a cheap knockoff of the real Chicago
Pneumatic brand. I got that for which I paid, unfortunately.

--Winston

************************************************** ***
Dogs are better than people.

People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And
then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most
of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a
headache.........

Old Nick wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:41:48 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I am not sure we are seeing Sear's ftlbs. initially, I felt the same
as your thoughts that the 350ftlbs at the wrench would translate to
500 lbs of force at the handle. But if this followed, then no imnpact
wrench worth crap would be _usable_, because it would simply rip out
of your hand.

They do have a torque adjusting valve.

I think there must be an impact level of 350 ft lbs. So
measuring this is going to be extremnely difficult, using expected
torques on the handle. It will be for a very short time.

Yeahhhh. But. If the torque even *peaked* at 350 ft. lbs. the wrench
would still have no problem with a ~70 ft. lb. lug nut.

Sears ft. lbs., I insist.

AFAIK, mine is NOT a cheap knockoff. Given that I see 100ftlb machines
for sale, I simply wonder if 350ft lbs is simply yhe baby of the lot,
and not very heavy duty.

My 1/2" Makita drill has *way* more torque than that 'impact wrench'
ever did.

--Winston

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:59:28 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:41:48 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I am not sure we are seeing Sear's ftlbs. initially, I felt the same
as your thoughts that the 350ftlbs at the wrench would translate to
500 lbs of force at the handle. But if this followed, then no imnpact
wrench worth crap would be _usable_, because it would simply rip out
of your hand. I think there must be an impact level of 350 ft lbs. So
measuring this is going to be extremnely difficult, using expected
torques on the handle. It will be for a very short time.

AFAIK, mine is NOT a cheap knockoff. Given that I see 100ftlb machines
for sale, I simply wonder if 350ft lbs is simply yhe baby of the lot,
and not very heavy duty.



I'd be willing to bet that everyone who's had problems with impact
wrenches haven't read the instructions. The fact is 1/2" impact
wrenches really need a 1/2" hose and large size quick connects to get
enough air to make rated torque at rated pressure. If you want rated
torque with a 1/4" or 3/8" hose then you'll have to run at higher
pressure to make up for the pressure drop.

Also not all impact wrenches are made for max torque. I have a old
industrial grade Souix impact wrench. It's definitely not the
strongest out there but it's very well made. It's designed for use on
a production line without over tightening the bolts.

In fact I've got a 3/8" IR "Ultra Duty" impact which comes very close
to being as strong as my 1/2" Souix. It's really too strong and I was
forced to buy a cheap Harbor Freight 3/8" impact to use for any bolts
smaller than 7/16". There's no way to turn the IR down enough to use
with smaller bolts without breaking them.

Wayne Cook
Shamrock, TX
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/waynecook

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:58:08 -0600, Wayne Cook
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I'd be willing to bet that everyone who's had problems with impact
wrenches haven't read the instructions. The fact is 1/2" impact
wrenches really need a 1/2" hose and large size quick connects to get
enough air to make rated torque at rated pressure. If you want rated
torque with a 1/4" or 3/8" hose then you'll have to run at higher
pressure to make up for the pressure drop.

Yes. I agree. And guilty as charged, although I kept my run as short
as I could, and even tried running two 3/8 pipes in parallel (which I
have since found to be a minimal gain). What you need is a gauge at
the tool end, probably.

Having since looked at fluid flow through pipes, I have been
completely floored by the effect that pipe size has on flow
capabilities. Going from 3/8 to 1/2 over a 20 foot length causes a
about 4:1 reduction in flow restriction. This is the fifth power of
the diameter ratio!

When I was looking at this "off the top of my head", I assumed it may
be the square of the diameter, maybe, "plus a bit". But friction on
the walls causes more restriction than the actual area AFAICS!


Also not all impact wrenches are made for max torque.

Here I have more trouble agreeing. If it says 350lbft, then it should
do 350lbft, whatever the usage it's then not suitable for.

Old Nick wrote:
(Snip)
Here I have more trouble agreeing. If it says 350lbft, then it should
do 350lbft, whatever the usage it's then not suitable for.

RUHRA! ('Gabby Johnson', _Blazing Saddles_ 1974)

--Winston

In article ,
Winston wrote:

That is wierd. The guys installing wheels can get the nuts tight
enough to require a breaker bar *and* cheater.

They must be using an uber wrench.

Well I am regularly seeing 500lb and even 1000lb ones for sale in the
papers, but they're 3/4 drive. Maybe 350 is just not enough.

350 is probably *plenty*, if they are real pounds instead of Sears pounds.
350 ft. lbs would spin off lug nuts easily.

Back of envelope arithmetic:
Distance from center of spindle to end of handgrip ~0.7 ft.
(350 ft. lb. of torque) / 0.7' = 500 lbs. of force to counteract.
The wrench I owned wasn't supplying that kind of force to my hands even
on a good day. More like 20 lbs. of force to counteract. On a good day.

So, no more than ~14 ft. lbs. of torque at the spindle. Heck, the torque
spec on my lug nuts is more like 70 ft. lbs.

No wonder it didn't work.

The ultimate strength of an impact depends on how fast the air motor
can get that little weight swinging in one turn.
Things that'll weaken a good impact:
Skinny air lines or fittings
Low or fluctuating air pressure
Gummy oil buildup inside the motor
Lots of grease inside the hammer compartment
Weak grip on the gun--push against the handle's tendency to rotate
and keep the jiggling to a minimum. Light weight guns are worse about
this.

Pull it apart, clean it up, check your connections and you can
probably beef up most impact guns.
The impact works by swinging around a weight and catching it on the
side of a shaft once per revolution. If the shaft won't move, or only
moves a little, the weight slips off and comes around again--whamwham.
If the resistance is gone the weight holds onto the shaft and you get a
direct drive--whrrr.
So, that reaction force is actually whatever it takes to make that
weight slip off the catch on the side of the shaft. The impact is the
energy stored in the weight as it's accelerated around the shaft, and
you get a small reaction force from that acceleration. I'm not sure how
to go about calculating that, but what's up above isn't right. That's
more like figuring for an air ratchet, which is a real knuckle buster.
If you want I can pull apart my impact and provide some photos of its
guts.

As Brian said, my wrench was probably a cheap knockoff of the real Chicago
Pneumatic brand. I got that for which I paid, unfortunately.

--Winston

Possibly, but you can sometimes get some use out of even a hunk of
crap impact if you baby it.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

B.B. wrote:
(Snip)

The ultimate strength of an impact depends on how fast the air motor
can get that little weight swinging in one turn.
Things that'll weaken a good impact:
Skinny air lines or fittings
Low or fluctuating air pressure
Gummy oil buildup inside the motor
Lots of grease inside the hammer compartment
Weak grip on the gun--push against the handle's tendency to rotate
and keep the jiggling to a minimum. Light weight guns are worse about
this.

Pull it apart, clean it up, check your connections and you can
probably beef up most impact guns.
The impact works by swinging around a weight and catching it on the
side of a shaft once per revolution. If the shaft won't move, or only
moves a little, the weight slips off and comes around again--whamwham.
If the resistance is gone the weight holds onto the shaft and you get a
direct drive--whrrr.
So, that reaction force is actually whatever it takes to make that
weight slip off the catch on the side of the shaft. The impact is the
energy stored in the weight as it's accelerated around the shaft, and
you get a small reaction force from that acceleration. I'm not sure how
to go about calculating that, but what's up above isn't right. That's
more like figuring for an air ratchet, which is a real knuckle buster.

Thanks for the explanation.

In the back of my mind, I expected that the specified torque was an
instantanious value at the time of the weight impact.
I just think that a wrench rated for 350 ft. lb. should have no problem
busting loose a 70 ft. lb. lug nut, even if much of the force is suppled
for a short pulse in each revolution.

If you want I can pull apart my impact and provide some photos of its
guts.

Thanks for the offer but not for me. Perhaps Young Nick would find that
useful?

--Winston

In article ,
Winston wrote:

[...]

Thanks for the explanation.

In the back of my mind, I expected that the specified torque was an
instantanious value at the time of the weight impact.
I just think that a wrench rated for 350 ft. lb. should have no problem
busting loose a 70 ft. lb. lug nut, even if much of the force is suppled
for a short pulse in each revolution.

You're right, it *should* be able to. Either yours really is the
piece of crap you think it is, or it needs a cleaning.

If you want I can pull apart my impact and provide some photos of its
guts.

Thanks for the offer but not for me. Perhaps Young Nick would find that
useful?

I'll go ahead and do it for the hell of it.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

In article
,
"B.B." u wrote:

If you want I can pull apart my impact and provide some photos of its
guts.

Thanks for the offer but not for me. Perhaps Young Nick would find that
useful?

I'll go ahead and do it for the hell of it.

Hooray for boring sundays mornings.
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/pro...gun/index.html

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

B.B. wrote:
In article
,
"B.B." u wrote:
(Snip)
I'll go ahead and do it for the hell of it.


Hooray for boring sundays mornings.
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/pro...gun/index.html

Wow! Nicely done. Very nice clickable pictures.
That impact mechanism surprised me with its simplicity.

Thanks!

--Winston

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:31:26 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Old Nick wrote:
(Snip)
Here I have more trouble agreeing. If it says 350lbft, then it should
do 350lbft, whatever the usage it's then not suitable for.

RUHRA! ('Gabby Johnson', _Blazing Saddles_ 1974)

Sorry...you lost me there..

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:52:03 -0600, "B.B."
u vaguely proposed
a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

You're right, it *should* be able to. Either yours really is the
piece of crap you think it is, or it needs a cleaning.

Or the lines were too small as Wayne said. IMO a far more likely
common scenario.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:25:51 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:31:26 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Old Nick wrote:
(Snip)
Here I have more trouble agreeing. If it says 350lbft, then it should
do 350lbft, whatever the usage it's then not suitable for.

RUHRA! ('Gabby Johnson', _Blazing Saddles_ 1974)

Sorry...you lost me there..

Its a Yank inside joke.

G

Gunner, giggling hysterically at the memory of the camp fire scene.

"Candygram for Mr. Mongo!"





Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

Old Nick wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:31:26 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Old Nick wrote:
(Snip)

Here I have more trouble agreeing. If it says 350lbft, then it should
do 350lbft, whatever the usage it's then not suitable for.

RUHRA! ('Gabby Johnson', _Blazing Saddles_ 1974)

Sorry...you lost me there..

I was enthusiastically agreeing with your statement about truth-
in-advertising.

--Winston

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:25:51 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:


On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:31:26 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Old Nick wrote:
(Snip)

Here I have more trouble agreeing. If it says 350lbft, then it should
do 350lbft, whatever the usage it's then not suitable for.

RUHRA! ('Gabby Johnson', _Blazing Saddles_ 1974)

Sorry...you lost me there..


Its a Yank inside joke.

G

Gunner, giggling hysterically at the memory of the camp fire scene.

"Candygram for Mr. Mongo!"

"Work work work work work. Oh, hi fellas."

--Winston

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:02:29 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:25:51 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:31:26 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Old Nick wrote:
(Snip)
Here I have more trouble agreeing. If it says 350lbft, then it should
do 350lbft, whatever the usage it's then not suitable for.

RUHRA! ('Gabby Johnson', _Blazing Saddles_ 1974)

Sorry...you lost me there..

Its a Yank inside joke.

G

Gunner, giggling hysterically at the memory of the camp fire scene.

"Candygram for Mr. Mongo!"

"Mongo is just a pawn in game of life."

"That's HEDLEY Lamar! HEDLEY, not Heddy!"

And don't you just hate it when they run it on Network TV, and some
tight-ass has edited out all the (eruptations) so all you hear during
the campfire scene is the crickets chirping... Totally ruins the
punch line at the end.

If they translated all the Yiddish words and names (like Lilly Von
Schtupp) that were slipped in before they censored the movie, they
could NEVER run a Mel Brooks film on Network TV ever again - and that
might turn out to be a good thing. I prefer my funny uncut, like the
director intended.

-- Bruce --

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:33:50 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Old Nick wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:31:26 -0800, Winston
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Old Nick wrote:
(Snip)

Here I have more trouble agreeing. If it says 350lbft, then it should
do 350lbft, whatever the usage it's then not suitable for.

RUHRA! ('Gabby Johnson', _Blazing Saddles_ 1974)

Sorry...you lost me there..

I was enthusiastically agreeing with your statement about truth-
in-advertising.

OK. Fine. I did get the other bits about the candy man etc. Forgot
that bit.