Hi
I was given this small piece of sheet Titanium some 2 mm. thick ----
thought Titanium was a very tough metal but as the size was quite handy
for a cabinet scraper I polished all faces and edges and for fun made
the burr and bended it as I am used to with the steel ones, --- and it
turned out to be the longest lasting scraper edge I ever made.

Anyone heard about this before ? --- it seem Titanium are fairly easy
to polish with a fine arkansas stone and making the burr is no more
difficult than on my other scrapers, care for a photo please ask.

P.C.

On 21 Jun 2006 10:03:52 -0700, wrote:

Hi
I was given this small piece of sheet Titanium some 2 mm. thick ----
thought Titanium was a very tough metal but as the size was quite handy
for a cabinet scraper I polished all faces and edges and for fun made
the burr and bended it as I am used to with the steel ones, --- and it
turned out to be the longest lasting scraper edge I ever made.

Anyone heard about this before ? --- it seem Titanium are fairly easy
to polish with a fine arkansas stone and making the burr is no more
difficult than on my other scrapers, care for a photo please ask.

P.C.

Sure, I'll take a look at the pic.

I hadn't thought of this. And I've got a couple of small sheets of
titanium with which to try this. Shame on me.

Kelly E Jones wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:
Hi
I was given this small piece of sheet Titanium some 2 mm. thick ----
thought Titanium was a very tough metal but as the size was quite handy
for a cabinet scraper I polished all faces and edges and for fun made
the burr and bended it as I am used to with the steel ones, --- and it
turned out to be the longest lasting scraper edge I ever made.

Odd... Ti is generally shunned by knifemakers. Though strong and
light, it is not hard at all, relative to steel. It is not known for
it's ability to keep an edge.

The oxide however is very hard, and perhaps the burr is thin enough to
oxidize through. Or perhaps not, I'm just speculating here.

Interesting thought, might be worth experimenting with sometime.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Titanium is highly useful for such things as making fighter planes, because
it has a very high strength to weight ratio, and has very good high
temperature properties. But, it is expensive and hard to work. Don't be
seduced because it is exotic.

Steve

"Kelly E Jones" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
Hi
I was given this small piece of sheet Titanium some 2 mm. thick ----
thought Titanium was a very tough metal but as the size was quite handy
for a cabinet scraper I polished all faces and edges and for fun made
the burr and bended it as I am used to with the steel ones, --- and it
turned out to be the longest lasting scraper edge I ever made.

Odd... Ti is generally shunned by knifemakers. Though strong and
light, it is not hard at all, relative to steel. It is not known for
it's ability to keep an edge.

Kelly

But I remember when I worked at Boeing on the 1st 747's we had to drill
some titanium now and then. It ate drill bits like they were string.
Steel was a piece of cake to drill. Maybe it depends on the alloy. It
sounds like it would be worth a try.


J. Clarke wrote:
Kelly E Jones wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:
Hi
I was given this small piece of sheet Titanium some 2 mm. thick ----
thought Titanium was a very tough metal but as the size was quite handy
for a cabinet scraper I polished all faces and edges and for fun made
the burr and bended it as I am used to with the steel ones, --- and it
turned out to be the longest lasting scraper edge I ever made.

Odd... Ti is generally shunned by knifemakers. Though strong and
light, it is not hard at all, relative to steel. It is not known for
it's ability to keep an edge.

The oxide however is very hard, and perhaps the burr is thin enough to
oxidize through. Or perhaps not, I'm just speculating here.

Interesting thought, might be worth experimenting with sometime.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hi
rich wrote:
But I remember when I worked at Boeing on the 1st 747's we had to drill
some titanium now and then. It ate drill bits like they were string.
Steel was a piece of cake to drill. Maybe it depends on the alloy. It
sounds like it would be worth a try.


Now what I found at first , was that the arkansas , the right very fine
one, realy "bite" .
I guess not all stones will perform as well ,but the stones I use are
the right ones for cabinet scrapers and the bite is quite there, you
can't hear it but cirtainly you can feel it. Also this piece are 2 mm.
--- it is easier to burr with a thicker piexe than a thin one ,still it
take only one or two blow to form the burr more than that don't work
------- guess Titanium are better grinded than worked with drill bits ,
anyway I see to leave the photo I promised .
Btw --- Titanium are a strange metal, you can red heat a 15 cm ling
piece and shuld be able to hold the other end in your fingers, make me
wonder why epoxies are still thought to be better for space crafts .

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/fig5.jpg

wrote:

Hi
rich wrote:
But I remember when I worked at Boeing on the 1st 747's we had to drill
some titanium now and then. It ate drill bits like they were string.
Steel was a piece of cake to drill. Maybe it depends on the alloy. It
sounds like it would be worth a try.


Now what I found at first , was that the arkansas , the right very fine
one, realy "bite" .
I guess not all stones will perform as well ,but the stones I use are
the right ones for cabinet scrapers and the bite is quite there, you
can't hear it but cirtainly you can feel it. Also this piece are 2 mm.
--- it is easier to burr with a thicker piexe than a thin one ,still it
take only one or two blow to form the burr more than that don't work
------- guess Titanium are better grinded than worked with drill bits ,
anyway I see to leave the photo I promised .
Btw --- Titanium are a strange metal, you can red heat a 15 cm ling
piece and shuld be able to hold the other end in your fingers, make me
wonder why epoxies are still thought to be better for space crafts .

You mean besides that carbon composites have several times the
strength-to-weight ratio?

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/fig5.jpg

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:


Btw --- Titanium are a strange metal, you can red heat a 15 cm ling
piece and shuld be able to hold the other end in your fingers, make me
wonder why epoxies are still thought to be better for space crafts .

You mean besides that carbon composites have several times the
strength-to-weight ratio?

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/fig5.jpg

What I mean is that even that, epoxies simply don't like fire, --- then
the weight-strength issue don't make sense . What is needed is not
super expensive special on-site woven reinforcement producing one-off
special compoments that surely are strong but not realy fitted for
heat. ---- the picture show a 3D-H framework forming a plane fuselage
all done in sheet metal , now if that technology had had the same
develobment as the petrochemic epoxy one, there allready would be super
strong plane fuselages without all that epoxy trouble. Digital
manufactored and micro welded that could produce a fuselage acting as
it's own cooling element.

Eh , ---- I proberly shuld add, that 3D-H by the FAA is described as
"an exiting new way to build fuselages for small commersial and sports
planes".

What it do , --- and please think about how even today plane fuselages
are still made with ribs and stringers as if they was row-boats , ----
anyway the 3D-H form a strong framework where each frame support
eachother instead of letting the "skin" act as a main structural
element.

wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:


Btw --- Titanium are a strange metal, you can red heat a 15 cm ling
piece and shuld be able to hold the other end in your fingers, make me
wonder why epoxies are still thought to be better for space crafts .

You mean besides that carbon composites have several times the
strength-to-weight ratio?

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/fig5.jpg

What I mean is that even that, epoxies simply don't like fire, --- then
the weight-strength issue don't make sense .

I'm sorry, but I don't see where fire is an issue for something that
functions in a vacuum. Do you know of any spacecraft that have had
problems with onboard fires?

What is needed is not
super expensive special on-site woven reinforcement producing one-off
special compoments that surely are strong but not realy fitted for
heat.

Would you try that in English?

---- the picture show a 3D-H framework forming a plane fuselage
all done in sheet metal , now if that technology had had the same
develobment as the petrochemic epoxy one, there allready would be super
strong plane fuselages without all that epoxy trouble.

What "epoxy trouble"?

Digital
manufactored and micro welded that could produce a fuselage acting as
it's own cooling element.

No doubt. What leads you to believe that there is a need for such a
fuselage and what does this have to do with spacecraft?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

wrote:


Eh , ---- I proberly shuld add, that 3D-H by the FAA is described as
"an exiting new way to build fuselages for small commersial and sports
planes".

What it do , --- and please think about how even today plane fuselages
are still made with ribs and stringers as if they was row-boats ,

You've never seen a LongEZE, have you?

----
anyway the 3D-H form a strong framework where each frame support
eachother instead of letting the "skin" act as a main structural
element.

What the Hell is "3D-H" and what does it have to do with anything?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hi

J. Clarke wrote:

The oxide however is very hard, and perhaps the burr is thin enough to
oxidize through. Or perhaps not, I'm just speculating here.

Interesting thought, might be worth experimenting with sometime.


Well others suggested that it could be a hardening process that just
occour, while making the burr you proberly generate much more heat than
you would expect just at the edge, -- I remember "self hardening" tool
steel I used for a stasionary router head , Im'e also just speculating
------ anyway here are the photo ;

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/ti-scraper.jpg



P.C.

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kineserier.jpg

J. Clarke wrote:


What "epoxy trouble"?

Trouble realising you reached a dead-end , say after 40 years realise
that a once promising technike never will deliver the rugid parts it
ask , trouble realising that metal acturly could have done the job if
new way's to put things together had had the same investment . Now I
started as boatsbuilder and develobed software to be able to saty
building fine quality items like this that profited fully from digital
projecting and digital design tools ;

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/Lofot-1.jpg

Only this aproach in the fine old crafts just allowed me to realise
that there realy are a call for a new way to put things together ---
3D-H -- or 3D Honeycomb that allow you to project a house, a boat, a
plane ,a Cabin or an arts museum 3D with a standard P.C. , and after
all the detail modeling and projecting, just by a press of a buttom
will offer you all major structural frames in a brand new way --- the
breakthru did not come with the FAA approval but earlier this year
,when I and an article in english and chinese published about the
method, in a major chinese architect magazin ;

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kineserier.jpg

Now you can try make a fool of me just becaurse my bad english , this
will be typical usenet, I am used to that --- people nip picking a
single word while they themself totaly misunderstand the messeage or
from some wierd reson, only can understand a happy messeage as "somone
who think he is someone" --- well I think I am someone, somone who is
not afrait to share my results and offer a new way to put things
together ;
But when you ask ;

Digital
manufactored and micro welded that could produce a fuselage acting as
it's own cooling element.

No doubt. What leads you to believe that there is a need for such a
fuselage and what does this have to do with spacecraft?


Then think about it --- 30 or more years ago Epoxies was promised a
glorious future , today dreamliners only show at what expense but what
many tend to forget, is what other technikes that could have been
develobed , technikes such as 3D-H that is the only technike that fully
engage digital manufactoring and deliver a super strong structure as a
honeycomb structure , with no problems with heat and same strength
beside fully intergrated with direct-link production.
This is simply a new way to put things together, a method so simple
that offer advanced structures where foundations and bulkheads act
compleatly different remember , that from the start aeroplanes was
acturly just boatsbuilding ,just ribs and stringers and, since then
this old concept even today reflect in construction of modern plane
fuselages, now remember what FAA. said about 3D-H , and they just
scraped the surface.

wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:


What "epoxy trouble"?

Trouble realising you reached a dead-end ,

Who has "realized you reached a dead end"?

say after 40 years realise
that a once promising technike never will deliver the rugid parts it
ask ,

Already is delivering "rugged parts".

trouble realising that metal acturly could have done the job if
new way's to put things together had had the same investment .

The problem is not "new ways to put together", the problem is that the
stiffness-to-weight ratio and strength to weight ratio achievable with
metals, no matter how cleverly put together, is less than that achievable
with organic composites.

Now I
started as boatsbuilder and develobed software to be able to saty
building fine quality items like this that profited fully from digital
projecting and digital design tools ;

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/Lofot-1.jpg

Only this aproach in the fine old crafts just allowed me to realise
that there realy are a call for a new way to put things together ---
3D-H -- or 3D Honeycomb that allow you to project a house, a boat, a
plane ,a Cabin or an arts museum 3D with a standard P.C. , and after
all the detail modeling and projecting, just by a press of a buttom
will offer you all major structural frames in a brand new way --- the
breakthru did not come with the FAA approval but earlier this year
,when I and an article in english and chinese published about the
method, in a major chinese architect magazin ;

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kineserier.jpg

Having pushed the button do you end up with a structure that is demonstrably
superior in performance to other designs? And what makes you think that
honeycomb is metal?

Now you can try make a fool of me just becaurse my bad english , this
will be typical usenet, I am used to that --- people nip picking a
single word while they themself totaly misunderstand the messeage or
from some wierd reson, only can understand a happy messeage as "somone
who think he is someone" --- well I think I am someone, somone who is
not afrait to share my results and offer a new way to put things
together ;

Don't be so defensive. Your English is so poor that it is difficult to
figure out what you are on about. That is something that you are going to
have to accept until you learn to improve your English.

But when you ask ;

Digital
manufactored and micro welded that could produce a fuselage acting as
it's own cooling element.

No doubt. What leads you to believe that there is a need for such a
fuselage and what does this have to do with spacecraft?


Then think about it --- 30 or more years ago Epoxies was promised a
glorious future , today dreamliners only show at what expense but what
many tend to forget, is what other technikes that could have been
develobed , technikes such as 3D-H that is the only technike that fully
engage digital manufactoring and deliver a super strong structure as a
honeycomb structure , with no problems with heat and same strength
beside fully intergrated with direct-link production.

You have not explained the need for the configuration you propose nor have
you explained what it has to do with spacecraft. You keep talking about
"heat" without explaining why anybody should _care_ about it.

What is a "dreamliner"?

This is simply a new way to put things together, a method so simple
that offer advanced structures where foundations and bulkheads act
compleatly different remember , that from the start aeroplanes was
acturly just boatsbuilding ,just ribs and stringers and, since then
this old concept even today reflect in construction of modern plane
fuselages, now remember what FAA. said about 3D-H , and they just
scraped the surface.

Just one more tool.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
...

Now you can try make a fool of me just becaurse my bad english , this
will be typical usenet, I am used to that --- people nip picking a
single word while they themself totaly misunderstand the messeage or
from some wierd reson, only can understand a happy messeage as "somone
who think he is someone" --- well I think I am someone, somone who is
not afrait to share my results and offer a new way to put things
together ;

Don't be so defensive. Your English is so poor that it is difficult to
figure out what you are on about. That is something that you are going to
have to accept until you learn to improve your English.


His English is better than some teenagers who post.

So long as he's not a native speaker, criticism is unwarranted,
though correction might be welcome.

--

FF

wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
...

Now you can try make a fool of me just becaurse my bad english , this
will be typical usenet, I am used to that --- people nip picking a
single word while they themself totaly misunderstand the messeage or
from some wierd reson, only can understand a happy messeage as "somone
who think he is someone" --- well I think I am someone, somone who is
not afrait to share my results and offer a new way to put things
together ;

Don't be so defensive. Your English is so poor that it is difficult to
figure out what you are on about. That is something that you are going
to have to accept until you learn to improve your English.


His English is better than some teenagers who post.

So long as he's not a native speaker, criticism is unwarranted,
though correction might be welcome.


Fine, you translate it.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hi

J. Clarke wrote:

The problem is not "new ways to put together", the problem is that the
stiffness-to-weight ratio and strength to weight ratio achievable with
metals, no matter how cleverly put together, is less than that achievable
with organic composites.


First I must ask you to realise that Epoxies _also_ once had to fight
it's way --- that _all_ new methods and materials have their share of,
sorry to say but also epoxy had a fight before reconised.
Now your arguments support epoxy with just those arguments that proven
it's value but ; why is it you think nothing have changed, why 30 years
later and with 30 years of develobment , metal shuldn't be able to
challance again . And please remember the limitations as I point to ---
hyber expensive woving mills that produce hyber expensive one-off parts
,That is my main argument .


http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kineserier.jpg


Now this picture only show two possible structures, but it is the
method, the concept, the fact that this new method work with a plain
P.C. and a simple CAD program that shuld catch your attention.

Having pushed the button do you end up with a structure that is demonstrably
superior in performance to other designs? And what makes you think that
honeycomb is metal?


True it ask an open mind, that you take a look at some of the hundreds
of different structures for planes, houses, boats that demonstrate the
flexibility of a new perception of the build works ---- remember that a
building structure in 3D-H consist of only sheet materials , not the
hundreds of different materials you are used to. Remember how different
this concept is ; today when architects project a house they acturly
use the computer as a spreadsheet --- I say so as I am registrated
application develober --- none of these programs acturly "build" the
house they keep an account on what windows and doors is put in . But
3D-H do it different it generate each and every building frame to be
cut plain, in sheet material , you can not say it is wrong just
becaurse it work different a steam engine work different than a jet
engine , and you can't blame the jet engine that there are no place to
poor the coal.


What is a "dreamliner"?


It is an aeroplane made in plastic.

This is simply a new way to put things together, a method so simple
that offer advanced structures where foundations and bulkheads act
compleatly different remember , that from the start aeroplanes was
acturly just boatsbuilding ,just ribs and stringers and, since then
this old concept even today reflect in construction of modern plane
fuselages, now remember what FAA. said about 3D-H , and they just
scraped the surface.

Just one more tool.


Sorry but it is more than that, it is a complete new way to use a
computer to generate each and every frame for a honeycomb structure ;
now you proberly think about that as honeycomb sheets that you bend in
place ,but this is not what 3D-H is ; with 3D-H you can manufactor a
honeycomb structure that follow any form without bending and fiddeling,
you can make the honeycomb framework from plastic or metal , and just
the way it work (when you realise and understand the method) , allready
made FAA. realise that here is a new way to produce aeroplanes, --- but
3D-Honeycomb offer much more than just that ; it is different
compleatly different but ofcaurse it is a new way to put things
together, to build the basic structure for almost anything.

Just remember not to blame it that it don't work as the methods you are
used to, that shuld be the privilige of all new methods to be judged on
their own terms --- just like epoxies was 40 years ago. Realy wouldn't
you think metal would strike back and how many deg. can hardened epoxy
restand.