Maybe a layered approach to casting a plane's base....two layers, and fill with high grade sand in-between? Like on the M-1 Abrams? Then call it the "Norm" plane?
Contributor
Maybe a layered approach to casting a plane's base....two layers, and fill with high grade sand in-between? Like on the M-1 Abrams? Then call it the "Norm" plane?
Contributor
We keep talkin' about this stuff and Patrick and Malcolm are gonna get visits from the men in blacked-out Suburbans!
[OP]
Contributor
I see nothing- I know nothing...Originally Posted by Frederick Skelly
We keep talkin' about this stuff and Patrick and Malcolm are gonna get visits from the men in blacked-out Suburbans!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo
Member
Everything I brought up is public knowledge. I have a close relative who worked at a national lab on matters closely related to nuke design, and I've been acquainted with people who I'm pretty sure were weapons designers, but I don't know anything I shouldn't (that I know of).We keep talkin' about this stuff and Patrick and Malcolm are gonna get visits from the men in blacked-out Suburbans!
Contributor
Seven shakes of a lambs tail. The secondary can generate whatever you need really, or almost 3 times what you expect as the USA found out the hard way. Most of the fall out comes from detonation too close to the ground.
Member
As late as the 1990s weapons designers still referred to Castle Bravo as "the one that overachieved" in casual conversation.
IIRC analysis of the byproducts in the fallout is what publicly revealed that the bulk of Castle Bravo's yield had come from fast fission of the Uranium tamper. The yield overshoot was caused by ignoring the fact that Li7 deuteride would breed Tritium in situ, thereby generating more neutrons and inducing more fission than expected in the tamper.
There were "clean" weapons with inert tampers that got most of their yield from fusion, such as the Soviet "Tsar Bomba" and some US variants, but those yielded something like a third of what they would have with a Uranium tamper.
Waaaayyyy off topic now.
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 07-18-2017 at 11:11 PM.
Member
By the way, since it is about bronze body plane, what are the requirements for plane body material? And why bronze or cast iron? What about stainless steel or other metals/alloys?
Aluminium was tested and discarded. Would depleted uranium qualify? What color would it give to the wood when marring it?
Member
Steel has been done.
Let's see, I think that from a functional perspective we'd want non-toxic, non-radioactive, inexpensive, easily formed/machined, reasonably-corrosion-resistant and non-reactive, etc.
DU loses big on the first 4, especially toxicity. It's fairly nasty stuff.
Contributor
Kind of a pastel green glow?Aluminium was tested and discarded. Would depleted uranium qualify? What color would it give to the wood when marring it?
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
It's not quite stainless steel but how about high nickel iron:
http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/pag...=1,41182,48942
But that's not stainless steel. You really want a stainless steel plane?
http://www.bridgecitytools.com/defau...ock-plane.html
Been there but didn't done that as I didn't get one. Or get the T-shirt for that matter.
-Tom
Member
According to chemical properties, it will rust even better and will leave almost black marks. It doesn't glow so much until critical mass accumulates in critical shape
On the other hand, I've heard that cast steel is more flexible than cast iron or cast ductile iron. Means that the plane might become twisted or bend over time. In other words, why cast (ductile) iron?
Price of a new hand plane is nearly approaching price of silver of the same weight, and some infills are half-golden
Contributor
Wonder IF Stanley ever made an A4-1/2 plane? They had the A4, and A5, and A6.....Hmmm...
Maybe someone can strip the armour plate off the old Battleships in Bikini Lagoon.....and mill planes out of billets of the stuff... Some of it was almost 16" thick.....maybe go for the quarter sawn stuff?
Member
People usually do that with the German WWI High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow, particularly when they need steel shielding that doesn't emit radiation of its own.
Member
Derek, which of the pm-v11 blades did you buy? I wasn't aware LV stocked blades that would fit the LN bench planes.I think I paid $600 ($500?) for my Anniversary #4 1/2 ... 10 years ago? It is signed by TLN and has Cocobolo woodwork. The lever cap is inscribed, and it came with a numbered certificate (500 were made). It also came with a 50 degree frog (too low to do any good), which I replaced with a 55 degree frog (still too low and too hard to push). Now it has a 45 degree frog and works very well with the chipbreaker. The LN A2 blade was replaced by a Veritas PM-V11. Otherwise it is original
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edit: the price was $450 all those years ago
Member
The 2" and 2-3/8" blades from their old non-custom bench plane line would probably work in LN bench planes of those widths (everything but 1-3 and 8). I've never tried it as I don't have any of those LN planes (I have the 2, 3, and 8. My 4-7 planes are LV).
LV's line of Stanley replacement blades also work in L-N planes, though they're a bit thinner than the original blade at 0.100". I've used an LV 1-3/4" Stanley replacement blade in an L-N 3 without trouble.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote