G. Ross wrote:
The belt on my bandsaw is slipping. I have tightened it as far as the
motor will move already. I decided to take it and get a new belt.
Now the good part. The lower wheel will have to be removed. It is
held on the shaft by a 26mm nut. Can't use an adjustable wrench
because the wheel protrudes around the nut. Of all the sockets I have
accumulated in the past 50 years, there is no 26 mm socket. I either
order a socket to fit the nut or cut off the flange that surrounds it.

I ordered a socket. It is probably made in Taiwan like the bandsaw.
Got to love those far-thinking Chinese.

Received the socket today. A very nice looking socket. And it WAS
made in Taiwan.

--
 GW Ross 

 Free advice is worth what you pay for 
 it 

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:06:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 1:54 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
wrote in :

On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:12:16 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

My house is 35 years old. Just finished one bathroom and planning the
next. Already have the floor tile. Anyone want a blue toilet?

Put it on CraigsList. You'll probably find someone with a harvest
gold one to trade. ;-)

In our first house, all of the bathroom fixtures were yellow
(including a very nice porcelain cast iron tub). *NOTHING* goes with
yellow. We also had a harvest gold stove and avocado 'fridge but they
were easily replaced. ;-)


I almost offered to trade a dark pink toilet, but realized that blue
(they're usually a powder blue, aren't they?) would probably clash with
the dark pink counter top.

My dad's house (which he built) has aqua fixtures (tub, sink, toilet),
all Kohler, in the upstairs bath. Kohler had great style, even 60 years
ago. With that said, a blue toilet usually goes with nothing.

Our Vermont house had a cobalt blue Kohler toilet; impossible to find
parts for. The house was built in '87, so the commode was no antique.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:


I bought a bike for my daughter a number of years back. The assembly
instructions listed the tools that would be needed; including an
adjustable wrench. I'm no grease monkey, but I have basic sets of
sockets in English and Metric sizes. I figured the "adjustable wrench"
recommendation was for those poor benighted souls who keep their
entire complement of six tools in a kitchen drawer. A "handy" fellow like
me
wasn't going to fool around with an adjustable wrench.

Turns out the nuts - TWO different sizes - were non-standard.


Oh yeah - a real handy guy does have a few different sizes of adjustable
wrenches around at all time. I've got toos - lots of tools, but I also have
and handful of adjustable wrenches. Ya just gotta know when to use 'em and
when not...

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and imperial
sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

On 2/10/14, 4:18 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Jeff Thies wrote:


Density matters for a lot of reasons, not the least is sound
transmission. It also adds to thermal mass. I have floating
counter top (no underneath support) hanging off a plaster lath
wall, would of been much harder to do with sheetrock.

As for sound transmission - that's not quite as simple as one might
think. Denser/harder materials will transmit sound through them
and/or reflect sound off of them more so than less dense materials.
This is not a cut and dried sort of discussion that can easily be
expressed at one being better than the other. It's probably safe
though to say that a less dense material will absorb and reduce sound
much better than a more dense material. Look at the insides of a
sound studio.


Those softer materials are there to control the sound within the room,
and do virtually nothing to stop it from transferring to another room.
While you are correct that mass, alone, doesn't stop sound from
transferring to another room, uncoupled mass does. That's why in those
recording studios you see two walls separated by an air space between
two rooms. They call it and "room-within-a-room."

A large mass can actually amplify some resonant frequencies to another
room. When you have two heavy masses of different resonant frequencies,
unconnected physically, virtually no sound transference will take place.
Once cheap and effective way to accomplish this is to have a cement
block wall on one side and a stud and sheetrock wall on the other.
Almost all the sound that escapes through that type of contruction does
so through air gaps in the doors, windows, and utility cavities.

Despite what the Pink Panther would lead you to believe, those rolls of
insulation inside the walls do very little for *real* soundproofing.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/10/2014 9:32 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/10/14, 4:18 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Jeff Thies wrote:


Density matters for a lot of reasons, not the least is sound
transmission. It also adds to thermal mass. I have floating
counter top (no underneath support) hanging off a plaster lath
wall, would of been much harder to do with sheetrock.

As for sound transmission - that's not quite as simple as one might
think. Denser/harder materials will transmit sound through them
and/or reflect sound off of them more so than less dense materials.
This is not a cut and dried sort of discussion that can easily be
expressed at one being better than the other. It's probably safe
though to say that a less dense material will absorb and reduce sound
much better than a more dense material. Look at the insides of a
sound studio.


Those softer materials are there to control the sound within the room,
and do virtually nothing to stop it from transferring to another room.
While you are correct that mass, alone, doesn't stop sound from
transferring to another room, uncoupled mass does. That's why in those
recording studios you see two walls separated by an air space between
two rooms. They call it and "room-within-a-room."

A large mass can actually amplify some resonant frequencies to another
room. When you have two heavy masses of different resonant frequencies,
unconnected physically, virtually no sound transference will take place.
Once cheap and effective way to accomplish this is to have a cement
block wall on one side and a stud and sheetrock wall on the other.
Almost all the sound that escapes through that type of contruction does
so through air gaps in the doors, windows, and utility cavities.

Despite what the Pink Panther would lead you to believe, those rolls of
insulation inside the walls do very little for *real* soundproofing.



No but rock wool is a good insulator, while the pink stuff is not.
Not only does it fireproof but it really is a good sound damper.

--
Jeff

On 02/10/2014 09:10 PM, woodchucker wrote:
On 2/10/2014 9:32 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/10/14, 4:18 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Jeff Thies wrote:


Density matters for a lot of reasons, not the least is sound
transmission. It also adds to thermal mass. I have floating
counter top (no underneath support) hanging off a plaster lath
wall, would of been much harder to do with sheetrock.

As for sound transmission - that's not quite as simple as one might
think. Denser/harder materials will transmit sound through them
and/or reflect sound off of them more so than less dense materials.
This is not a cut and dried sort of discussion that can easily be
expressed at one being better than the other. It's probably safe
though to say that a less dense material will absorb and reduce sound
much better than a more dense material. Look at the insides of a
sound studio.


Those softer materials are there to control the sound within the room,
and do virtually nothing to stop it from transferring to another room.
While you are correct that mass, alone, doesn't stop sound from
transferring to another room, uncoupled mass does. That's why in those
recording studios you see two walls separated by an air space between
two rooms. They call it and "room-within-a-room."

A large mass can actually amplify some resonant frequencies to another
room. When you have two heavy masses of different resonant frequencies,
unconnected physically, virtually no sound transference will take place.
Once cheap and effective way to accomplish this is to have a cement
block wall on one side and a stud and sheetrock wall on the other.
Almost all the sound that escapes through that type of contruction does
so through air gaps in the doors, windows, and utility cavities.

Despite what the Pink Panther would lead you to believe, those rolls of
insulation inside the walls do very little for *real* soundproofing.



No but rock wool is a good insulator, while the pink stuff is not.
Not only does it fireproof but it really is a good sound damper.

The best sound proofer is 2 x 4 studs at 1' alternating edge centers on
2 x 6 plates. Add insulation if it makes you feel better. No contact
between opposite walls.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 2/10/14, 10:39 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 02/10/2014 09:10 PM, woodchucker wrote:
On 2/10/2014 9:32 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/10/14, 4:18 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Jeff Thies wrote:


Density matters for a lot of reasons, not the least is sound
transmission. It also adds to thermal mass. I have floating
counter top (no underneath support) hanging off a plaster lath
wall, would of been much harder to do with sheetrock.

As for sound transmission - that's not quite as simple as one might
think. Denser/harder materials will transmit sound through them
and/or reflect sound off of them more so than less dense materials.
This is not a cut and dried sort of discussion that can easily be
expressed at one being better than the other. It's probably safe
though to say that a less dense material will absorb and reduce sound
much better than a more dense material. Look at the insides of a
sound studio.


Those softer materials are there to control the sound within the room,
and do virtually nothing to stop it from transferring to another room.
While you are correct that mass, alone, doesn't stop sound from
transferring to another room, uncoupled mass does. That's why in those
recording studios you see two walls separated by an air space between
two rooms. They call it and "room-within-a-room."

A large mass can actually amplify some resonant frequencies to another
room. When you have two heavy masses of different resonant frequencies,
unconnected physically, virtually no sound transference will take place.
Once cheap and effective way to accomplish this is to have a cement
block wall on one side and a stud and sheetrock wall on the other.
Almost all the sound that escapes through that type of contruction does
so through air gaps in the doors, windows, and utility cavities.

Despite what the Pink Panther would lead you to believe, those rolls of
insulation inside the walls do very little for *real* soundproofing.



No but rock wool is a good insulator, while the pink stuff is not.
Not only does it fireproof but it really is a good sound damper.

The best sound proofer is 2 x 4 studs at 1' alternating edge centers on
2 x 6 plates. Add insulation if it makes you feel better. No contact
between opposite walls.


I've done that type of wall in studios and they perform very poorly.
Are they better than a standard stud wall? Yes, for ordinary
residential use.
But they would never work for a studio.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/10/2014 11:01 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

I've done that type of wall in studios and they perform very poorly.
Are they better than a standard stud wall? Yes, for ordinary
residential use.
But they would never work for a studio.

Never say never.

They do for some practical applications in the studio. Depends upon the
location, distance from, and frequency that you wish to mitigate.

Installed correctly, double stud walls will mitigate sound transmission
_by decoupling_, for _practical_ isolation in areas like vocal booths,
not so effectively in areas like drum and amp booths.

But a double stud wall room/booth, a few feet away from a separate
double stud wall/booth, will often get you close enough for practical
purposes.

RWAR is fairly effective for decoupling, not so practical, and what you
make on the bananas you lose on the grapes ... IME, ventilation in RWAR
becomes a problem that brings with it its own sound transmission problems.

Good thing as a practical matter, most of the time it is not necessary
to totally "soundproof" a studio, or an area within a studio, just
attenuate the transmission of unwanted frequencies/sound in those areas
to an amplitude that doesn't interfere with the recording process.

The problem is quite a bit more involved mathematically/physically than
what is said here, but the practical application basically boils down
to, and roughly speaking, the necessity for effective sound absorption
techniques to require a dimension equal to the length of the absorbed
sound wave to be effective.

A 20Hz sound wave (@sea level) is approximately 56', not taking into
account properties of the material it is passing though, like mass, etc,
making soundproofing with material impractical in most situations ...
although at some frequencies it can be done with noise cancellation
techniques. (Example: sometimes running a monitor system 180 degrees out
of phase with the source will attenuate the sound picked up by a mic to
an acceptable level for both recording, and to prevent feedback on a
sound stage).

As far as residential application, when I build a house I generally
specify double/alternating stud walls in rooms next to the utility
rooms. In my own house, my bed is less than five feet from a washer and
dryer in the utility room next to the master bedroom, and for all
purposes it doesn't exist as a sound problem. I do have to watch the
framers, plumbers, electricians and drywall crew very closely during
construction to insure that they don't couple the walls with pipes, etc.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/11/14, 8:47 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/10/2014 11:01 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

I've done that type of wall in studios and they perform very
poorly. Are they better than a standard stud wall? Yes, for
ordinary residential use. But they would never work for a studio.

Never say never.

They do for some practical applications in the studio. Depends upon
the location, distance from, and frequency that you wish to
mitigate.

Installed correctly, double stud walls will mitigate sound
transmission _by decoupling_, for _practical_ isolation in areas like
vocal booths, not so effectively in areas like drum and amp booths.


Well, I am a drummer, right? :-p


But a double stud wall room/booth, a few feet away from a separate
double stud wall/booth, will often get you close enough for practical
purposes.


Now you're just making my point for me.
If one works, why are you now building two? :-)
As I said in my other post, a room-within-a-room: two walls with an air
gap between. For best results, they would have difference resonant
frequencies, or in other words, built from different materials. On
block, one wood. One wood stud and sheetrock, one metal stud and brick
or double rock. etc, etc. Which is what you talk about here...


RWAR is fairly effective for decoupling, not so practical, and what
you make on the bananas you lose on the grapes ... IME, ventilation
in RWAR becomes a problem that brings with it its own sound
transmission problems.

Good thing as a practical matter, most of the time it is not
necessary to totally "soundproof" a studio, or an area within a
studio, just attenuate the transmission of unwanted frequencies/sound
in those areas to an amplitude that doesn't interfere with the
recording process.

The problem is quite a bit more involved mathematically/physically
than what is said here, but the practical application basically boils
down to, and roughly speaking, the necessity for effective sound
absorption techniques to require a dimension equal to the length of
the absorbed sound wave to be effective.

A 20Hz sound wave (@sea level) is approximately 56', not taking into
account properties of the material it is passing though, like mass,
etc, making soundproofing with material impractical in most
situations ... although at some frequencies it can be done with noise
cancellation techniques. (Example: sometimes running a monitor system
180 degrees out of phase with the source will attenuate the sound
picked up by a mic to an acceptable level for both recording, and to
prevent feedback on a sound stage).

As far as residential application, when I build a house I generally
specify double/alternating stud walls in rooms next to the utility
rooms. In my own house, my bed is less than five feet from a washer
and dryer in the utility room next to the master bedroom, and for all
purposes it doesn't exist as a sound problem. I do have to watch the
framers, plumbers, electricians and drywall crew very closely during
construction to insure that they don't couple the walls with pipes,
etc.


I would specify cement block. :-)
Having done some alternating stud walls, I'm left to wonder if it isn't
easier and more effective to simply build two walls, close to one
another for those purposes.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/11/2014 9:35 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/11/14, 8:47 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/10/2014 11:01 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

I've done that type of wall in studios and they perform very
poorly. Are they better than a standard stud wall? Yes, for
ordinary residential use. But they would never work for a studio.

Never say never.

They do for some practical applications in the studio. Depends upon
the location, distance from, and frequency that you wish to
mitigate.

Installed correctly, double stud walls will mitigate sound
transmission _by decoupling_, for _practical_ isolation in areas like
vocal booths, not so effectively in areas like drum and amp booths.


Well, I am a drummer, right? :-p


But a double stud wall room/booth, a few feet away from a separate
double stud wall/booth, will often get you close enough for practical
purposes.


Now you're just making my point for me.
If one works, why are you now building two? :-)

In a word, utilization of interior space and, if done/placed properly,
of great benefit in reduction of standing waves in an otherwise less
than desirable recording space.

I would specify cement block. :-)
Having done some alternating stud walls, I'm left to wonder if it isn't
easier and more effective to simply build two walls, close to one
another for those purposes.

Depends upon where the facility is located, IOW, stand-alone, commercial
building, middle of a downtown city block, next to a loading dock (-
actual experience, there g), etc.

My point, having built three commercial studios from the ground up, the
pursuit of "soundproofing", and perfection in acoustic space, is mostly
one of the "holy grail" nature, never realized, ill advised, and often
practically unnecessary.

Very often, time and money better is better spent on practical issues
that have more impact on the recording environment.

Not to mention that, historically, more memorable hit records have been
cut in a waaaay less than perfect "studio environments -- the likes
Motown, Sun, Cowboy Jack Clements's, Muscle Shoals, Sugar Hill, et al
than in all the designer built, 'perfection of acoustic environment',
"soundproof" studios combined.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/11/14, 12:10 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/11/2014 9:35 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/11/14, 8:47 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/10/2014 11:01 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

I've done that type of wall in studios and they perform very
poorly. Are they better than a standard stud wall? Yes, for
ordinary residential use. But they would never work for a
studio.

Never say never.

They do for some practical applications in the studio. Depends
upon the location, distance from, and frequency that you wish to
mitigate.

Installed correctly, double stud walls will mitigate sound
transmission _by decoupling_, for _practical_ isolation in areas
like vocal booths, not so effectively in areas like drum and amp
booths.


Well, I am a drummer, right? :-p


But a double stud wall room/booth, a few feet away from a
separate double stud wall/booth, will often get you close enough
for practical purposes.


Now you're just making my point for me. If one works, why are you
now building two? :-)

In a word, utilization of interior space and, if done/placed
properly, of great benefit in reduction of standing waves in an
otherwise less than desirable recording space.

I would specify cement block. :-) Having done some alternating
stud walls, I'm left to wonder if it isn't easier and more
effective to simply build two walls, close to one another for those
purposes.

Depends upon where the facility is located, IOW, stand-alone,
commercial building, middle of a downtown city block, next to a
loading dock (- actual experience, there g), etc.

My point, having built three commercial studios from the ground up,
the pursuit of "soundproofing", and perfection in acoustic space, is
mostly one of the "holy grail" nature, never realized, ill advised,
and often practically unnecessary.

Very often, time and money better is better spent on practical issues
that have more impact on the recording environment.

Not to mention that, historically, more memorable hit records have
been cut in a waaaay less than perfect "studio environments -- the
likes Motown, Sun, Cowboy Jack Clements's, Muscle Shoals, Sugar Hill,
et al than in all the designer built, 'perfection of acoustic
environment', "soundproof" studios combined.


I couldn't agree more with that.
I've often been consulted on soundproofing/building out home studios and
I usually tell them to spend the money on mics. But perception is
reality. When a client walks into really cool decorated studio, with
all the crazy angles and thick glass partitions and Goliath doors and
all that, they get the feeling that their project is going to sound like
the studio looks.

When they walk into a converted garage (Motown!) and don't see all the
soundproofing bells and whistles, they think it's just a mom-n-pop home
studio. It very well might be, but until you hear what's been recorded
in there, you have no idea what kind of ear candy could come out of
place that doesn't have the looks of a place featured in Recording
magazine.

So my consulting client always opts for tricking the joint out with
expensive soundproofing crap from the vendors here in Nashville and
spend all their money on construction supplies and drywall finishers
(all those crazy angles) and when their done, they end up buying a
Mackie board and $100 mics from Guitar Center and they wonder why their
awesome room sounds like crap.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/11/2014 12:34 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

So my consulting client always opts for tricking the joint out with
expensive soundproofing crap from the vendors here in Nashville and
spend all their money on construction supplies and drywall finishers
(all those crazy angles) and when their done, they end up buying a
Mackie board and $100 mics from Guitar Center and they wonder why their
awesome room sounds like crap.

My favorite Jack Clement's utterance: "Just remember, ALL it really
takes to cut a hit record is three minutes."

There is world of tongue-in-cheek wisdom in that statement, mostly
apparent only to those who have been in pursuit of same.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/10/2014 9:32 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/10/14, 4:18 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Jeff Thies wrote:


Density matters for a lot of reasons, not the least is sound
transmission. It also adds to thermal mass. I have floating
counter top (no underneath support) hanging off a plaster lath
wall, would of been much harder to do with sheetrock.

As for sound transmission - that's not quite as simple as one might
think. Denser/harder materials will transmit sound through them
and/or reflect sound off of them more so than less dense materials.
This is not a cut and dried sort of discussion that can easily be
expressed at one being better than the other. It's probably safe
though to say that a less dense material will absorb and reduce sound
much better than a more dense material. Look at the insides of a
sound studio.


Those softer materials are there to control the sound within the room,
and do virtually nothing to stop it from transferring to another room.
While you are correct that mass, alone, doesn't stop sound from
transferring to another room, uncoupled mass does. That's why in those
recording studios you see two walls separated by an air space between
two rooms. They call it and "room-within-a-room."

Exactly!

A large mass can actually amplify some resonant frequencies to another
room. When you have two heavy masses of different resonant frequencies,
unconnected physically, virtually no sound transference will take place.
Once cheap and effective way to accomplish this is to have a cement
block wall on one side and a stud and sheetrock wall on the other.
Almost all the sound that escapes through that type of contruction does
so through air gaps in the doors, windows, and utility cavities.

Despite what the Pink Panther would lead you to believe, those rolls of
insulation inside the walls do very little for *real* soundproofing.

I agree.


Did some broadcast and recording work in the distant past.

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and imperial
sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE scale
on one side, and a metric on the other.

Jeff

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and imperial
sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE scale
on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other. ;-)

They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I don't
remember).

On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and imperial
sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE scale
on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other. ;-)

They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I don't
remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable wrenches
with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-) They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I don't
remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable wrenches
with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.


Well - that's ok for you guys that call things good enough. For me - I do
the dial caliper thing, and then I hit the wrench with my mig welder to make
sure it won't move. Ya can never be too safe ya know...

--

-Mike-

On 2/12/2014 9:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-) They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I don't
remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable wrenches
with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.


Well - that's ok for you guys that call things good enough. For me - I do
the dial caliper thing, and then I hit the wrench with my mig welder to make
sure it won't move. Ya can never be too safe ya know...



Safer still, weld the adjustable wrench to the nut!

On 2/12/2014 9:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-) They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I don't
remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable wrenches
with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.


Well - that's ok for you guys that call things good enough. For me - I do
the dial caliper thing, and then I hit the wrench with my mig welder to make
sure it won't move. Ya can never be too safe ya know...



Got that blade yet?

Leon wrote:
On 2/12/2014 9:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-) They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I
don't remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable
wrenches with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.


Well - that's ok for you guys that call things good enough. For me
- I do the dial caliper thing, and then I hit the wrench with my mig
welder to make sure it won't move. Ya can never be too safe ya
know...


Safer still, weld the adjustable wrench to the nut!

I would have expected nothing less from you Leon. I've seen your
workmanship and this kind of contribution makes it clear why you are the
craftsman that you are. All we need now if for Karl to chime in and tell us
that it would be better if we were still using arc welders...

--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:
On 2/12/2014 9:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-) They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I
don't remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable
wrenches with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.


Well - that's ok for you guys that call things good enough. For me
- I do the dial caliper thing, and then I hit the wrench with my mig
welder to make sure it won't move. Ya can never be too safe ya
know...


Got that blade yet?

No! The damned thing is still in transit from Utah of all places! The
company is only about 150 miles from here and the blade is manufactured
about 150 miles in a different direction, but it's shipping from... UTAH!
Every day, I'm going out to my garage to smoke some cigs and while I'm out
there, I'm reassuring my table saw that a new and wonderful thing is about
to enter its life. I fear it may be starting to doubt me...

--

-Mike-

On 2/12/2014 9:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 2/12/2014 9:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-) They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I
don't remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable
wrenches with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.


Well - that's ok for you guys that call things good enough. For me
- I do the dial caliper thing, and then I hit the wrench with my mig
welder to make sure it won't move. Ya can never be too safe ya
know...


Got that blade yet?

No! The damned thing is still in transit from Utah of all places! The
company is only about 150 miles from here and the blade is manufactured
about 150 miles in a different direction, but it's shipping from... UTAH!
Every day, I'm going out to my garage to smoke some cigs and while I'm out
there, I'm reassuring my table saw that a new and wonderful thing is about
to enter its life. I fear it may be starting to doubt me...

You have kids right? You know better than to let the cat out of the bag
before you know that you can deliver. LOL

Leon wrote:
On 2/12/2014 9:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 2/12/2014 9:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the
other. ;-) They probably have the scale on them too (pretty
useless, so I don't remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable
wrenches with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.


Well - that's ok for you guys that call things good enough. For me
- I do the dial caliper thing, and then I hit the wrench with my
mig welder to make sure it won't move. Ya can never be too safe ya
know...


Got that blade yet?

No! The damned thing is still in transit from Utah of all places! The
company is only about 150 miles from here and the blade is
manufactured about 150 miles in a different direction, but it's
shipping from... UTAH! Every day, I'm going out to my garage to
smoke some cigs and while I'm out there, I'm reassuring my table saw
that a new and wonderful thing is about to enter its life. I fear
it may be starting to doubt me...
You have kids right? You know better than to let the cat out of the
bag before you know that you can deliver. LOL

But... me and my table saw have developed such a love relationship over the
past couple of months...

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:57:13 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and imperial
sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE scale
on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other. ;-)

They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I don't
remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable wrenches
with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.

;-)

How about just putting it on the nut and turning the knob until it
fits?


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:30:21 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Leon wrote:
On 2/12/2014 9:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-) They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I
don't remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable
wrenches with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.


Well - that's ok for you guys that call things good enough. For me
- I do the dial caliper thing, and then I hit the wrench with my mig
welder to make sure it won't move. Ya can never be too safe ya
know...


Safer still, weld the adjustable wrench to the nut!

I would have expected nothing less from you Leon. I've seen your
workmanship and this kind of contribution makes it clear why you are the
craftsman that you are. All we need now if for Karl to chime in and tell us
that it would be better if we were still using arc welders...

Does Festool make arc welders?

On 2/12/2014 10:22 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/12/2014 9:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-) They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I
don't
remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable wrenches
with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.


Well - that's ok for you guys that call things good enough. For me -
I do
the dial caliper thing, and then I hit the wrench with my mig welder
to make
sure it won't move. Ya can never be too safe ya know...



Safer still, weld the adjustable wrench to the nut!

Nah. I simply weld a handle onto each nut before I use it.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 2/12/2014 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:57:13 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and imperial
sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE scale
on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other. ;-)

They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I don't
remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable wrenches
with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.

;-)

How about just putting it on the nut and turning the knob until it
fits?

Then what would I use the caliper for?


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:39:11 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 2/12/2014 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:57:13 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and imperial
sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE scale
on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other. ;-)

They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I don't
remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable wrenches
with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.

;-)

How about just putting it on the nut and turning the knob until it
fits?

Then what would I use the caliper for?

Weld it to the bolt to keep it from turning?

On 2/12/2014 10:20 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:57:13 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and imperial
sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE scale
on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other. ;-)

They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I don't
remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable wrenches
with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.

;-)

How about just putting it on the nut and turning the knob until it
fits?

Because that is how they did it in the olden days.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/12/2014 10:20 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:57:13 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-)

They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I
don't remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable
wrenches with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.

;-)

How about just putting it on the nut and turning the knob until it
fits?

Because that is how they did it in the olden days.



Rather than welding, I prefer to Loctite my wrench to the nut. Once it
sets up, I can turn the nut without fear of the wrench slipping. When
the nut's finally tight, a few seconds with a propane torch takes the
wrench right off.

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

On 2/12/2014 4:38 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/12/2014 10:20 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:57:13 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 2/11/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:49 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:12:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
snip

Yeah, I have several adjustable wrenches, in both metric and
imperial sizes. Some are both metric and imperial size. ;-)

I know it's a joke, but I have exactly such a beast, with an SAE
scale on one side, and a metric on the other.

I was referring to the "8in" on one side and "300mm" on the other.
;-)

They probably have the scale on them too (pretty useless, so I
don't remember).

True. They're not nearly accurate enough. I set my adjustable
wrenches with a dial caliper before applying them to the nut.

;-)

How about just putting it on the nut and turning the knob until it
fits?

Because that is how they did it in the olden days.



Rather than welding, I prefer to Loctite my wrench to the nut. Once it
sets up, I can turn the nut without fear of the wrench slipping. When
the nut's finally tight, a few seconds with a propane torch takes the
wrench right off.

Puckdropper

I just glue my wrenches to my nuts :-)
That way I don't have to go looking for them later ;-)
See: http://imgur.com/HOj8zoV

--
Jeff

woodchucker wrote:

I just glue my wrenches to my nuts :-)

Don't that hurt when you try to sit down?


--

-Mike-

On 2/12/2014 6:10 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
woodchucker wrote:

I just glue my wrenches to my nuts :-)

Don't that hurt when you try to sit down?


Yep, I have to shift them around.

--
Jeff