I've just bought one of these:
http://www.sipuk.co.uk/sip-3800-4ton-bottle-jack.html

Pity I can't get across from a mere photo how dinky this thing is for
a claimed 4 tons. I recall having 4 ton hydraulic bottle jacks in the
70 and they were very hefty & robust affairs. This isn't. So...

Should I be worried?
Are mechanical things getting smaller and lighter rather like
electronics have been for decades?
Have the laws of physics changed, enabling the design of flimsy
looking things to bear great weight?

Your reassurances sought.

Cheers,

cd

Surely you need to spread the weight.
I cannot see it but I can well remember some chain my father got which was
supposed to be about 5 ton, and it could not even take the strain of one end
of our car. the welds in the links busted.
Maybe there are Chinese tons?

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
I've just bought one of these:
http://www.sipuk.co.uk/sip-3800-4ton-bottle-jack.html

Pity I can't get across from a mere photo how dinky this thing is for
a claimed 4 tons. I recall having 4 ton hydraulic bottle jacks in the
70 and they were very hefty & robust affairs. This isn't. So...

Should I be worried?
Are mechanical things getting smaller and lighter rather like
electronics have been for decades?
Have the laws of physics changed, enabling the design of flimsy
looking things to bear great weight?

Your reassurances sought.

Cheers,

cd

On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 15:54:12 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Surely you need to spread the weight.
I cannot see it but I can well remember some chain my father got which was
supposed to be about 5 ton, and it could not even take the strain of one end
of our car. the welds in the links busted.
Maybe there are Chinese tons?

"Chinese Tons" ****ing classic!

On 06/07/14 15:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
I've just bought one of these:
http://www.sipuk.co.uk/sip-3800-4ton-bottle-jack.html

Pity I can't get across from a mere photo how dinky this thing is for
a claimed 4 tons. I recall having 4 ton hydraulic bottle jacks in the
70 and they were very hefty & robust affairs. This isn't. So...

Should I be worried?
Are mechanical things getting smaller and lighter rather like
electronics have been for decades?
Have the laws of physics changed, enabling the design of flimsy
looking things to bear great weight?

In the past machinery was reassuringly over-engineered. Nowadays every
gram of metal used in production has to be justified to the bean
counters, so nothing is any bigger or stronger than it absolutely has to be.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 17:15:39 +0200, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 15:54:12 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Surely you need to spread the weight.
I cannot see it but I can well remember some chain my father got which
was
supposed to be about 5 ton, and it could not even take the strain of one
end of our car. the welds in the links busted.
Maybe there are Chinese tons?

"Chinese Tons" ****ing classic!

Anyone remember 'Tokyo seconds'?



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 15:54:12 +0100
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

Surely you need to spread the weight.
I cannot see it but I can well remember some chain my father got
which was supposed to be about 5 ton, and it could not even take the
strain of one end of our car. the welds in the links busted.
Maybe there are Chinese tons?

Brian

I worked once at a Steel Mill near Shanghai, which produced steel in
those large rolls that you see on the backs of lorries. They typically
weighed about 12 tones each, give or take a ton. I once saw a lorry at
the side of the road, outside the canteen, and it had ten of these
steel rolls in the box at the back. The lorry had one front axle, and
one rear axle, so even if the load had been spread evenly, each axle
would have been supporting about 60 tons. As it was, the rear axle was
probably supporting 100 tons or more. I kept well away from the whole
thing.

--
Davey.

Anyone remember 'Tokyo seconds'?

I heard of her, but never met her.

On 06/07/2014 15:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
I've just bought one of these:
http://www.sipuk.co.uk/sip-3800-4ton-bottle-jack.html

Pity I can't get across from a mere photo how dinky this thing is for
a claimed 4 tons. I recall having 4 ton hydraulic bottle jacks in the
70 and they were very hefty & robust affairs. This isn't. So...

Should I be worried?
Are mechanical things getting smaller and lighter rather like
electronics have been for decades?
Have the laws of physics changed, enabling the design of flimsy
looking things to bear great weight?

Your reassurances sought.

Cheers,

cd


SIP is a well known brand. I would be very surprised if it did not have
this rating, with a pretty reasonable margin. The thing with bottle
jacks is that it is *very* important to get the load accurately aligned
with the jack: they will tip over very easily. Not a bad idea to bolt
them to a larger base plate to give you better stability.

In tension, a piece of even the cheapest steel 10 mm diameter will
support four tons.

Cursitor Doom wrote

I've just bought one of these
http://www.sipuk.co.uk/sip-3800-4ton-bottle-jack.html

Pity I can't get across from a mere photo how dinky this thing is for
a claimed 4 tons. I recall having 4 ton hydraulic bottle jacks in the
70 and they were very hefty & robust affairs. This isn't. So...

Should I be worried?

Are mechanical things getting smaller and lighter
rather like electronics have been for decades?

Some are, particularly when they use stuff like stainless
steel that wasn't economic to use in the past.

Have the laws of physics changed, enabling the
design of flimsy looking things to bear great weight?

Not with something like that.

On the other hand, in the past quite a bit of stuff
like that was grossly over designed. That is obvious
from stuff as basic as fixed open ended spanners etc.

Your reassurances sought.

On 06/07/14 15:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
I've just bought one of these:
http://www.sipuk.co.uk/sip-3800-4ton-bottle-jack.html

Pity I can't get across from a mere photo how dinky this thing is for
a claimed 4 tons. I recall having 4 ton hydraulic bottle jacks in the
70 and they were very hefty & robust affairs. This isn't. So...

Should I be worried?

It will lift 40kN if the base is welded down to a 1/2" steel plate under
the object to be lifted, the top engages into a cup and the object to be
lifted is laterally restrained in all directions...

On 06/07/14 16:23, pcb1962 wrote:
justified to the bean
counters, so nothing is any bigger or stronger than it absolutely has to
be.


Type approval should be

"Lift 4 ton truck, insert bean counter's head, leave for an hour".


Then they'd be over engineered.

On 06/07/14 16:41, Bob Eager wrote:

Anyone remember 'Tokyo seconds'?

Is that related to bukkake?

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:37:26 +0100, newshound
wrote:


In tension, a piece of even the cheapest steel 10 mm diameter will
support four tons.

I'm pleased to hear it. I just bought a milling machine and the
lifting eye it comes with has an alarmingly slim stem of no more than
that!

/Tim Watts
On 06/07/14 16:41, Bob Eager wrote:

Anyone remember 'Tokyo seconds'?

Is that related to bukkake/q

:-)

Jim K

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Surely you need to spread the weight.
I cannot see it but I can well remember some chain my father got which was
supposed to be about 5 ton, and it could not even take the strain of one
end of our car. the welds in the links busted.
Maybe there are Chinese tons?

Would they be multiples of wontons ?

On 06/07/2014 15:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Your reassurances sought.

Look at the links. They do a 12-ton model that looks identical!

Andy

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:39:22 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 06/07/2014 15:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Your reassurances sought.

Look at the links. They do a 12-ton model that looks identical!

Andy

Perhaps the jacks are all identical; they just put different labels on
them and charge accordingly?

Is that related to the film, "Thirty Seconds over Tokyo", (The
Doolittle Raid) ?

On 06/07/2014 16:41, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 17:15:39 +0200, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 15:54:12 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Surely you need to spread the weight.
I cannot see it but I can well remember some chain my father got which
was
supposed to be about 5 ton, and it could not even take the strain of one
end of our car. the welds in the links busted.
Maybe there are Chinese tons?

"Chinese Tons" ****ing classic!

Anyone remember 'Tokyo seconds'?