|
I did some sterling silver etching using the toner transfer method for the mask, and ferric nitrate to etch it. It only took about 2 hours to etch .007+ deep, then cleaned them up a little and dipped them in liver of sulfur to blacken them. They ended up being soldered into cufflinks for my friends wedding. It's a really cool process and had better resolution then engraving with a .004 tipped V-bit on my mill. These are about 3/4" in Diameter. 
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Wow, Those are really beautiful. Have you done any other work like that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Archives posted:Metal cutting bandsaws have a thinner kerf and cooling capabilities but are way overkill for anyone not running a shop. Chop saws don't cut crooked in any way and are perfectly fine for cutting angle prior to welding. Chop saws can cut crooked. Have you really never cut a 12" channel or something on a chop saw? Unless you baby the heck out of the thing you will wind up way way off your marks. And even if you do baby it it wont be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Turns out I was trying to cut my angle iron with a grinding wheel not a cutting wheel. I feel like a retard. With the cutting wheel it went WAY faster. Some pics of how I'm doing so far:   And my 20+ year old hood: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
SmokeyXIII posted:Chop saws can cut crooked. Have you really never cut a 12" channel or something on a chop saw? Unless you baby the heck out of the thing you will wind up way way off your marks. And even if you do baby it it wont be perfect. Of course there are hundreds of applications in the professional world where a chopsaw is suboptimal but there aren't really that many typical hobby shop operations that exceed a decent cold saw's ability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
For what it's worth, when I took classes at The Crucible in Oakland, there was a room with about a half-dozen chop saws which saw constant use for all manner of metalworking projects including most of the stuff done in the blacksmithing room. There were also two metal-cutting bandsaws, which we used any time we had to cut down a 21' piece of stock, and for making perfect 45-degree angle cuts in some 4" angle iron that we were using to make bases for anvil blocks. Among other projects. If you're doing something that absolutely requires precision, a chop saw is inadequate. But the great majority of hobby metalworking projects can handle a sixteenth-inch inaccuracy in a cut (or whatever).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:For what it's worth, when I took classes at The Crucible in Oakland, there was a room with about a half-dozen chop saws which saw constant use for all manner of metalworking projects including most of the stuff done in the blacksmithing room.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:For what it's worth, when I took classes at The Crucible in Oakland, there was a room with about a half-dozen chop saws which saw constant use for all manner of metalworking projects including most of the stuff done in the blacksmithing room. Oh, Leperflesh, do I know you?? I am an assistant teacher in the blacksmithing department.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
These really came out great. What paper did you use for the toner transfer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 11:51
|
|
|
ArtistCeleste posted:Oh, Leperflesh, do I know you?? I am an assistant teacher in the blacksmithing department. I mostly took my classes with Chris Niemer, during... uh, probably 2004-2007 or so? maybe 2008? I did a stint as lab assistant/monitor as well. But I haven't been by the Crucible in the last few years, since I bought a house and haven't had money and time to spare for classes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
I've only been there for about 3 years now, so I guess I wouldn't know you. Chris still runs the dept though. If you are ever around again be sure to introduce yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
invision posted:Turns out I was trying to cut my angle iron with a grinding wheel not a cutting wheel. I feel like a retard. With the cutting wheel it went WAY faster. Some pics of how I'm doing so far: Been there, done that. Spent the longest time cutting steel with a stone disk. It came with the grinder and had most the label rubbed off. Still though I tend to cut most stuff with a hand hacksaw anyway (my crowning acheivement is getting through 5 inch diameter EN8). I find it usually goes quicker than finding the right plug for the grinder and then putting on all the safety stuff. Hope i'm not patronizing with this, but when cutting angle iron with any sort of sawblade it helps alot to go at it like this. Makes it easier to clamp the work securely (you don't have one edge free to vibrate) plus helps stop the blade binding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
invision posted:Turns out I was trying to cut my angle iron with a grinding wheel not a cutting wheel. I feel like a retard. With the cutting wheel it went WAY faster. Some pics of how I'm doing so far: What position are you welding in? And that is an awful lot of spatter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
thecobra posted:What position are you welding in? And that is an awful lot of spatter. It's on the ground and I'm standing (kneeling) over it. I tried it on "low voltage" setting since it only has "low" and "high" but it would barely start a bead and was real lovely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
invision posted:It's on the ground and I'm standing (kneeling) over it. I tried it on "low voltage" setting since it only has "low" and "high" but it would barely start a bead and was real lovely. Try getting as comfortable as you can before you run your bead. Get the plate on a bench, bend the rod if you need to, and get your lean on. Being comfortable is key. I'm going to assume your machine doesn't really crank out the amps, based on your description of the settings and the bead profile. Your travel speed may be a little slow with convexity like that. Play around with it, change your current, travel speed and rod angle. Your beads are consistent, which is good. What rod are you using?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Doing decorative maille weaves at a larger scale rules. Really, really hard on the hands, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Are you rolling those rings by hand?  Soon you will be crushing granite between your fingers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
Still by hand, although I upgraded to a much thicker thumb-guard. Then I plopped the end of the mandrel in a lead ladle in my lap so it'd stay in place and turned. It fuckin sucked to do manually, I was rushing that b/c I was trying to finish it into a belt last night, for me mum to wear to a wedding (it's the same weave as a silver bracelet I made for her that she's wearing), but didn't end up finishing it. So. Buh. I'm definitely gonna rig up a system for winding heavy rings, because it seems worth pursuing- macromaille goes together so drat fast, I could probably knock a belt out in an hour, hour and a half if I had the rings prepped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
armorer posted:These really came out great. What paper did you use for the toner transfer? I'm pretty sure its the old HP Everyday Photo Paper, before they changed it to the higher gloss, that's water proof on the backside. I took a strip of the paper put it in water and the gloss slid right off. This is my first time doing any acid etching with silver, I have done a ton of copper pcb's tho..
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
I ask mostly because of that stupid glossy finish. The most difficult part of the toner transfer process for me has been getting the last bit of paper to release from the toner. You preserved some very nice details there, and i think using the right paper is a big part of that. The stuff I have right now is a pain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
I was thinking of going as Hephaestus for Halloween (b/c I have all the poo poo already) and I was thinkin' of dressing up one of my big square-faced forging hammers for the occasion. What's the protocol for etching steel again? I figure I could do some kind of vaguely organic/vine/scroll-ey pattern pretty easily by masking the side of the hammer in resist, scraping out the pattern, and then building up a 'dam' around the edges of the hammer a centimetre or two high in resist (I'm thinking ashphaltum here) so the acid can pool properly without needing to submerge the whole thing. e: Also, I wanna make a (costumey, non-functional, although still metal) pilos helmet. You know, conical dealie based off of those stupid weird felt cone hats Greek freedmen wore. Problem is, it's a hell of a raising job, and I've tried raising, like, once. So I figure I'll do it in pieces like a spangenhelm, and raise a small conical boss to put on top. Any tips for this kind of thing, sizing and pattern-making and such? Easiest thing to do is make the pattern out of stiff paper, assemble it with those weird spreading fasteners to check for fit, and then transfer to the metal, right? Ambrose Burnside fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Oct 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Dear Metalworking Thread, I've been following you discreetly for some time now. I hope that didn't sound weird. Anyway, I've been been prevaricating over whether I should buy a 3d printer or a cnc machine for some time now, and I think I'm finally decided on a cnc machine. It's just a toy basically, but I wanted something that could machine aluminum, brass and sometimes steel. At the prices I could rationalize the purchase to myself, it came down to just a few machines: the Taig CNC mill: http://taigtools.com/cmill.html ($2500) the Deepgroove1 mill: http://www.deepgroove1.com/ ($1700) of course, these are both the same mill, but the deepgroove has different motors and controllers. So, I come to you. I trawled the cnczone.com forums and I didn't see general consensus. Some people think the gecko controllers on the deepgroove are better than the ones on that taig, and some think the reverse. Do you have any opinion/knowledge of the matter? I'm currently leaning towards the deepgroove because i dont know, $700 can buy a lot of other stuff. I'm also interested in any other mills in the price range that I may have missed. Secondly, there's a 4th axis option for both. I had previously not really been interested in lathes, until i saw this page: http://www.deansphotographica.com/machining/projects/projects.html  obviously this dude's been around the block a few times, but i didn't really have any idea lathes were so versatile. So the taig lathe is fairly cheap at $500, but i'm wondering: can I just use the 4th axis on the CNC as a lathe? Or does it not work like that? I guess I could just ask the people at Taig, but that seems too simple. Please write back soonest, Sincerely, rotor
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
A mill is more useful than a lathe. If you have the technical drive, Id get an 80s/90s CNC'd knee mill or VMC with a busted control and retrofit it to emc2/mach. Itd cost a bit more but you could make money with it and itd have a very good resale value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
right, but the thing I'm wondering is do I get a mill and a lathe or do I get a mill with a 4th axis. I'm not getting it to make money with. I don't really have a lot of drive to tinker with the machine to get it running, so if setup time is more than "take out of box, bolt to countertop, adjust & zero" I don't have a lot of interest in it. like I said, its mostly a toy for me to tinker with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
rotor posted:right, but the thing I'm wondering is do I get a mill and a lathe or do I get a mill with a 4th axis. I wouldn't recommend CNC at all if you want something like that. If you gently caress up your set-up in a CNC machine, you can trash the whole thing, especially on those tiny rear end machines. You really don't want a $2500 piece of precision machinery sitting in your garage, rusting the table to the ways. Besides, you can't really build anything big and cool on machines that small. Get the 3D printer if you primarily want a toy, get the CNC if you want something you can use for projects, but also to just make chips sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 13:04
|
|
|
I disagree about the habby level 3d printer even if you want a toy because a 3D printer cannot make near net shape components to things, only roughly sized, poor material quality stuff that needs additional machining/filing to look good. I would go with a mill with a 4th axis if you think youll be able to program it to do continuous 4axis movement. P.S. a mill's 4th axis and a lathe do completely different things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
3d printers under ~$20 000 can't lay down metal anyways. They're a thing for technerds to gush about because they don't really grasp that material properties hinge so much off of the way the raw material is worked and shaped, and that much better solutions have existed for far cheaper for decades or centuries. Exhibit 1: 3D Printing a Shabby Crap Bicycle http://youtu.be/hmxjLpu2BvY (skip to 8:00 to see the thing wobble across the tarmac) Exhibit 2: Idiot Plastic Firearm http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/ Technofetishists ignore the fact that machine tool development was driven primarily by small arms development and is still quite tailored to manufacturing weapons- see the Naxalites in India, who produce virtually all of their firearms (many of an extremely high quality) in discreet workshops- and instead try to print a gun, out of plastic, that will most likely kill them or at absolute best be extraordinarily dangerous to use. Sorry, I've got... I've got beefs with the Maker community. In their defense, 3D printers are good for specific tasks like prototyping and making casting positives from 3D models and stuff like that, but just gawping at their crumbly low-res ABS Mario mushroom prints and going "3D printing is the fuuuuutuuuuure" without knowing much about anything, especially not about, you know, actually making things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Okay, but on the flip side, 3D printing is how old? You're basically going to the same extreme as the 3D printing proponents you describe: you're claiming it is basically worthless except for a niche market, as compared to "proper" metalworking, which has a history a couple orders of magnitude longer. For someone trying to make a thing right now, sure, there's more or less a right or wrong answer. But how can you claim Ambrose Burnside posted:"3D printing is the fuuuuutuuuuure" is inherently wrong? Where do you think 3D printing will be in a thousand years? Look at how far it's come in 10.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:is inherently wrong? Where do you think 3D printing will be in a thousand years? Look at how far it's come in 10. I don't think there'll be much of what you'd call "consumer computer products" in a century or two, never mind a millenia, not with the remaining reserves of rare metals intrinsic to a lot of modern electronics. Never mind inefficient, niche application processes that are the sole luxury of a late-stage consumerist society that is categorically unsustainable. There is no shining, golden future for us. e: i broke my own cardinal rule, Never Get Ideological In Pleasant Niche-Interest Threads, and for that i am sorry Ambrose Burnside fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Oct 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
soooo just to circle back here, y'all are telling me that the 4th axis on these mills cannot be used as a lathe? is that correct?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:I don't think there'll be much of what you'd call "consumer computer products" in a century or two, never mind a millenia, not with the remaining reserves of rare metals intrinsic to a lot of modern electronics. Never mind inefficient, niche application processes that are the sole luxury of a late-stage consumerist society that is categorically unsustainable. There is no shining, golden future for us. My point is more that you're comparing the potential usefulness of a technology in its infancy to that of a technology with a couple millennia behind it. Remember when computers were a niche market with little to no practical application?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
rotor posted:soooo just to circle back here, y'all are telling me that the 4th axis on these mills cannot be used as a lathe? is that correct? No, that 4th axis won't be very usable as a lathe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:My point is more that you're comparing the potential usefulness of a technology in its infancy to that of a technology with a couple millennia behind it. Remember when computers were a niche market with little to no practical application? Yeah, and I'm fine with doing that because the process is already quite evident, and what it's good at and what it isn't are as well. In no universe will it be more efficient to laser-sinter steel into an I-beam than to do it the ways we've spent centuries hashing out, no matter how refined the technique gets. I can say with confidence "they're never going to use wire EDM machines to make tin cans" because, although it's certainly possible to do, it's also self-evident that it's a grossly inefficient way to do so, and no matter how advanced the technique gets it's not going to unseat the machine that can extrude or wrap and weld 10 000 cans an hour. Just because a 3D printer technically can print all sorts of shapes, there's no good reason that it should be employed in many of those cases. Mass production is never going to be unseated by something that has to build an object up from the ground up one layer at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
But what if they make a machine that can build 10,000 of them, one layer at a time? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:something that has to build an object up from the ground up one layer at a time. And then someone invents a new method of 3D printing. Vacuum tube, meet transistor. Frankly, I don't really care about 3D printing. It doesn't hold much interest to me, so I'll leave it for people that want to experiment and try new things. But claiming it's not worthy simply because you lack the vision seems foolish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:And then someone invents a new method of 3D printing. Vacuum tube, meet transistor. But that wouldn't be 3D printing any more? 3D printing refers to a pretty specific thing, anything wondrous enough to overcome the design's fundamental limitations wouldn't have much to do with squirting thermoplastics out of inkjet nozzles. We're not going to refer to all matter-deposition processes as 3D printing from now on, just like we don't call 3D printing controlled casting or whatever. Actually, a better answer would have just been "the world isn't Star Trek, the burden of proof is on the utopians here." Like, "you don't know what the future holds" isn't really a good argument in favour of wonderful amazing breakthroughs happening maybe?? (sorry for making this arguethread. I'm a bad poster, a bad bad poster) e: Actually, just "How can I be sure? I can't, but that applies to literally anything speculative at all so I'll respond to it the way everyone normally does, "it's a risk I'll have to take."" Ambrose Burnside fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
I fully agree that "you don't know what the future holds" is the worst argument for "technology X will exist some day." However, it's a GREAT reason to try crazy poo poo like printing guns. Case in point: steel. v v
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
3d printing is not for when you want 1000 of a thing. Of course it isn't. It's for when you want 1 of a thing, or maybe 4, and having that thing custom made and shipped to you is more expensive and more prone to error than just printing it out. My wife has used 3d printing extensively for making robot parts. Right now she is making a larger robot which requires metal parts, and I can tell you that doing the waterjet cutting (never mind milling) of the robot parts out of aluminum is about five times more expensive than the 3d-printed smaller scale plastic parts she made previously. People who are excited about 3d printers in the home want to be able to dial up a small, relatively complex plastic thing and have it in their hand in 20 minutes. This is not a panacea, it's a niche application, but it's not so niche that a hobbyist has no practical use for one. Also. When I was at Maker faire this year, I came across a company selling a combination 3d printer/CNC mill. It was basically a three-axis cage which in which you could mount the plastic melty-gun thing of a 3d printer, OR a small spinning mill bit; plus the computer and software to run both. The idea is, print your 3d plastic object, and then use the mill to cut places where you had to leave support or structure (many 3d objects cannot be printed because every higher layer area must be supported by a lower-layer area), more precision, smooth finish, or whatever. It cost about $1000, and seemed not quite ready for prime time yet to me, but certainly within a couple years of being there. Condemning 3d printing as a useful device long-term because it will never be used to make I-beams or mass produce soda cans is a bit like condemning the bicycle as a useful device long-term because it will never become a freight train or a cruise ship. e. I should add that no, 3d printing is not only plastics. In fact the first 3d printer I ever saw, printed with sugar. Yes, it was for making candy. It was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:(many 3d objects cannot be printed because every higher layer area must be supported by a lower-layer area) Interestingly, this has largely been solved (at least in the larger, more "professional" machines, by printing in a medium, more or less talcum powder. Print a layer, shuffle some fine medium over, print another layer...at the end, the medium is vacuumed up to be used again for the next run. No more annoying scaffolding to chip away. They also have printers that can lay down some sort of metal material. I suspect it's vaguely similar to jb weld.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
oxbrain posted:No, that 4th axis won't be very usable as a lathe. To expand a bit: the 4th axis on a mill is just like any other axis and is used for precision positioning; it shouldn't be used to spin the work piece up to x-hundred RPM like a lathe. Adding a lathe headstock onto the table of a CNC mill is doable but in my opinion it would be better to have two separate machines so you don't have to compromise the ability of one or the other. As for what machine to buy - avoid anything with a round or tilting column. Since you don't want to do a lot of tinkering to get the thing set up, avoid any of the lower end Sieg models (X1 and X2) from HarborFreight, Grizzly, Enco, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 20:08
|
|
