Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:24 AM - Re: Digital Scale (MikeD)
2. 06:19 AM - Re: Re: Digital Scale (Glenn Thomas)
3. 07:14 AM - Re: (no subject) (Gene & Tammy)
4. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: Digital Scale (Gordon Bowen)
5. 11:31 AM - Re: Assembly milestone (Patrick Panzera)
6. 02:39 PM - (no subject) (RBush96589@aol.com)
7. 03:31 PM - Met some this summer, that would really love to learn to fly (walt evans)
8. 05:02 PM - Re: (no subject) (Gene & Tammy)
9. 07:05 PM - Re: Met some this summer, that would really love to learn to fly (Glenn Thomas)
10. 08:20 PM - Machined tail hinges (Mike Whaley)
11. 08:24 PM - Website for Pilots (Rcaprd@aol.com)
12. 08:55 PM - Re: Digital Scale (MikeD)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Digital Scale |
Glenn Thomas wrote:
> Resin 100 parts / Hardener 83 parts BY WEIGHT - From a call to System 3
>
> No problem with my "discovery". I got the mfr ration by weighing what I visually
compared. If you take your time, take your project seriously and measure
carefully, you will be fine.
>
> I agree with every point Bill made and have been using same type of mixing process
as he has and don't think new builders should have cause for concern if
they have been measuring visually by equal volume and doing it carefully.
It's quite true that with care and common sense volume mixing works alright. I
find mixing by weight faster and easier, maybe coz I've done it that way for twenty
years. In my opinion mixing by weight is more consistent and does not involve
any interpretation of liquid levels or whatever. And the weight ratio is
the "gospel" to use the term again, and I prefer to do things that way without
an interpretive step in between. Yes to the other post - they are formulated
so that the volume ratios end up at 1:1, using equivalent weight and specific
gravity information. And erring a little bit of either side of ideal won't cause
any significant problems, although the shift from ideal properties is certainly
related to the level of error. You will also find the weight ratio on the
data sheet - it is provided for those that prefer to mix by weight.
I just find mixing by weight easier, and I trust it far more than volume mixing.
To me, anytime you are mixing epoxy there is the possibility of error with any
method. 100 to 83 is dead nuts simple - pour what looks like enough resin into
a mixing vessel on a tared scale. Scribble the weight on a piece of paper
beside you as backup to your memory. Multiply by 0.83 with a $2.99 calculator.
Add that much curative. If you overshoot, pick out the excess if not blended
by the motion of pouring, or divide the excess by 0.83 and add resin to adjust.
Takes three times as long to write as to do. And to cross check things for
those with a penchant for recording their every move - keeping a table of your
batch weights (A&B) is fast and easy, and you can check back to look for errors
should something happen. It's common practice in some industries to record
those details for any composition involving mixing of two or more components.
Next time I get the chance, it will be an interesting little exercise to mix a
few batches by volume, recording the vessel + A weight and the total weight, and
compare accuracy to batches mixed by weight.
Do what works best for you, but I thought the significance of mixing by weight
might be of interest to some.
--------
Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150324#150324
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Digital Scale |
Hi Mike,
I might have reacted a little quickly here. When I was starting out I would
read a post on the forum, contemplate my approach and wonder if everything I
had made thus far was junk, to learn later that it wasn't. That was very
frustrating.
My comment comes from knowing that this is a pretty big undertaking and we
try and help each other take note without unnecessarily alarming folks that
did it the wrong way when in reality they did it the hard way, or didn't do
it the best way.
I actually think I will do what you and Brian Kraut say from now on (mark
the bottle 100 resin / 83 hardener) and measure up ...since you have caused
me to pause on this topic.
Now I don't feel like I wasted money on 3 scales.
Thanks for the info and the opportunity to pause and reconsider. The
information on my website was put there because a friend of mine simply
mixes 1:1 by mass using a scale considering this technique highly precise.
I knew he visited my site and this was a subtle way of informing him. I
still think my "discovery" is right. ...but your is most accurate and I
will continue as you have described.
Thanks,
Glenn
On 12/4/07, MikeD <mjdt@auracom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Glenn Thomas wrote:
> > Resin 100 parts / Hardener 83 parts BY WEIGHT - From a call to System 3
> >
> > No problem with my "discovery". I got the mfr ration by weighing what I
> visually compared. If you take your time, take your project seriously and
> measure carefully, you will be fine.
> >
> > I agree with every point Bill made and have been using same type of
> mixing process as he has and don't think new builders should have cause for
> concern if they have been measuring visually by equal volume and doing it
> carefully.
>
>
> It's quite true that with care and common sense volume mixing works
> alright. I find mixing by weight faster and easier, maybe coz I've done it
> that way for twenty years. In my opinion mixing by weight is more consistent
> and does not involve any interpretation of liquid levels or whatever. And
> the weight ratio is the "gospel" to use the term again, and I prefer to do
> things that way without an interpretive step in between. Yes to the other
> post - they are formulated so that the volume ratios end up at 1:1, using
> equivalent weight and specific gravity information. And erring a little bit
> of either side of ideal won't cause any significant problems, although the
> shift from ideal properties is certainly related to the level of error. You
> will also find the weight ratio on the data sheet - it is provided for those
> that prefer to mix by weight.
>
> I just find mixing by weight easier, and I trust it far more than volume
> mixing. To me, anytime you are mixing epoxy there is the possibility of
> error with any method. 100 to 83 is dead nuts simple - pour what looks like
> enough resin into a mixing vessel on a tared scale. Scribble the weight on a
> piece of paper beside you as backup to your memory. Multiply by 0.83 with
> a $2.99 calculator. Add that much curative. If you overshoot, pick out the
> excess if not blended by the motion of pouring, or divide the excess by
> 0.83 and add resin to adjust. Takes three times as long to write as to do.
> And to cross check things for those with a penchant for recording their
> every move - keeping a table of your batch weights (A&B) is fast and easy,
> and you can check back to look for errors should something happen. It's
> common practice in some industries to record those details for any
> composition involving mixing of two or more components.
>
> Next time I get the chance, it will be an interesting little exercise to
> mix a few batches by volume, recording the vessel + A weight and the total
> weight, and compare accuracy to batches mixed by weight.
>
> Do what works best for you, but I thought the significance of mixing by
> weight might be of interest to some.
>
> --------
> Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150324#150324
>
>
--
Glenn Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Robert,
How did the weekend go?? If I ride my cycle down that way will I be
able to see the strip from the road?(I'm riding down to Jackson later
this week).
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: RBush96589@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 7:51 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
Gene,
I rent a 2300 ft grass strip with a t-hanger from a neighbor of
mine about a half mile from my house.If you know where the law rd.exit
93 is off of i-40 it is about 4 miles north of there.
ROBERT BUSH
NX294RB
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
money wasters of 2007.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
11/24/2007 5:58 PM
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Digital Scale |
The homebuilt "industry" has been mixing resins for bonding their planes for
a heck of a lot of years. Rutan put some common sense in the use of two
part epoxies for homebuilts bout 35 yrs ago now. Burt's first Varieze plans
had you build a homemade scale to weigh resins/hardeners. The original
plans described a weighing scale that utilized different "arms" from a
centering pivot. The concept of "Arms" in weight/balance was something
homebuilders understood. Cheap digital scales were not available at the
time. The composite homebuilders use about 50 gals of resin/hardener to
make their planes and all plans I know of use the weight ratio for mixing,
one reason---it's the most accurate.. Most all epoxies promoted for use by
homebuilders are very forgiving, the reason for this is because the resin
part of the formula is a long polymer and it has a "equivalent weight" has a
range, meaning-- the number of chemically reactive sites for the hardener to
crosslink. The folks who make these resins like Shell or Dow or Ciba, sell
their resins to formulators so they can decide what hardeners and diluents
are good for the enduse. The formulators do their best to come up with a
formula that is user friendly but also works well in the application. There
are 100's of formulas that would work in homebuilding, but only a few that
are promoted or approved by the original homebuilder designer. The benefit
of this Piete thread is to inform builders they have have options and
provide some help with decisions. A) weighing the resin/hardener to get the
most accurate mix ratio is better technique. B) resin systems that are mixed
100:100 are more forgiving with mixed by volume. But many homebuilders use
systems that require 3parts resin to 1 part hardener, or 2:1, these systems
should be mixed by weight, it's simply better technique. C) in a previous
posting, I discussed the cost to the homebuilder for using the wrong resin
system or mis-mixing the system. The example I used was the roof collapse
in the Boston Tunnel Big Dig. The resin system they used was a simple
100:100 mix by volume, it was made simple for the construction industry to
bond bolts to concrete. It failed not because it was mis-mixed, but because
the resin formulator sent the wrong product to the job site. The resin
system had thermoplastic creep under strain, the resin set up "hard", seem
initially to work ok, but slowly cold flowed when the weight of the concrete
roof sagged the roof. System failed, someone died, millions of lost bucks,
and a formulator in bankruptcy. Moral of story-------use the right epoxy
system on your plane, use it correctly. The epoxy system holds your project
together for it's entire life.......don't short change your knowledge of
it's contribution to your safety. Do it right and you won't have to worry
and you won't have to do it again.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "MikeD" <mjdt@auracom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 4:23 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale
>
>
> Glenn Thomas wrote:
>> Resin 100 parts / Hardener 83 parts BY WEIGHT - From a call to System 3
>>
>> No problem with my "discovery". I got the mfr ration by weighing what I
>> visually compared. If you take your time, take your project seriously
>> and measure carefully, you will be fine.
>>
>> I agree with every point Bill made and have been using same type of
>> mixing process as he has and don't think new builders should have cause
>> for concern if they have been measuring visually by equal volume and
>> doing it carefully.
>
>
> It's quite true that with care and common sense volume mixing works
> alright. I find mixing by weight faster and easier, maybe coz I've done it
> that way for twenty years. In my opinion mixing by weight is more
> consistent and does not involve any interpretation of liquid levels or
> whatever. And the weight ratio is the "gospel" to use the term again, and
> I prefer to do things that way without an interpretive step in between.
> Yes to the other post - they are formulated so that the volume ratios end
> up at 1:1, using equivalent weight and specific gravity information. And
> erring a little bit of either side of ideal won't cause any significant
> problems, although the shift from ideal properties is certainly related to
> the level of error. You will also find the weight ratio on the data
> sheet - it is provided for those that prefer to mix by weight.
>
> I just find mixing by weight easier, and I trust it far more than volume
> mixing. To me, anytime you are mixing epoxy there is the possibility of
> error with any method. 100 to 83 is dead nuts simple - pour what looks
> like enough resin into a mixing vessel on a tared scale. Scribble the
> weight on a piece of paper beside you as backup to your memory. Multiply
> by 0.83 with a $2.99 calculator. Add that much curative. If you overshoot,
> pick out the excess if not blended by the motion of pouring, or divide the
> excess by 0.83 and add resin to adjust. Takes three times as long to write
> as to do. And to cross check things for those with a penchant for
> recording their every move - keeping a table of your batch weights (A&B)
> is fast and easy, and you can check back to look for errors should
> something happen. It's common practice in some industries to record those
> details for any composition involving mixing of two or more components.
>
> Next time I get the chance, it will be an interesting little exercise to
> mix a few batches by volume, recording the vessel + A weight and the total
> weight, and compare accuracy to batches mixed by weight.
>
> Do what works best for you, but I thought the significance of mixing by
> weight might be of interest to some.
>
> --------
> Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150324#150324
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Assembly milestone |
Sounds great!
Thanks!
Pat
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gcardinal
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Assembly milestone
Hi Pat,
I will forward this request to Greg Bacon. Greg is the current owner of
Mountain Piet, the turbo-Subaru powered Piet that is undergoing a wing
reconstruction after a landing mishap.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Panzera <mailto:Panzera@experimental-aviation.com>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Assembly milestone
Beautiful job Dan, thanks for sharing.
Gang,
In the current issue of CONTACT! Magazine, our very own Oscar Zuniga
presented an entertaining and well received article that explores the idea
of building a Henderson Longster as a part 103 legal ultralight. Although
our magazine usually doesn't delve into ultralights, I received a lot of
mail asking for more "low and slow" and antique style aircraft, like what we
use to get in To Fly.
So with that, and motivated by Dan's inspirational photos, I'd like to ask
the group to help me put together several Pietenpol articles that might help
to showcase the gambit of creativity and craftsmanship spread throughout
this community.
I'm sure if I ask nicely, OZ can help spearhead this effort, and with that,
maybe we can expand the scope of CONTACT! to include a regular presentation
representing open cockpits and flying wires.
I would most likely want to feature a minimum of three-four
aircraft/projects. Unlike most magazines that think featuring something
incomplete is taboo, we feel that our readers break down to the kind of
"mechanics" (for a lack of a better word) that would love nothing more than
spending an afternoon in a fellow builder's hanger, proposing over the work
in progress. but I digress.
I'd like to feature a 100% bone stock version of something that could have
easily been hand-crafted by Bernard himself, back in the 30's. Of course
since he pioneered the Corvair for use in experimental aviation, I'd like to
see a Corvair powered version too. I'd also like to feature the most
outrageous version available, maybe something with a turbo Sube, constant
speed prop, glass cockpit, what ever. a "modern" version if you will.
And then I'd like to feature something middle of the road; kinda like what
Bernard would design/build today (and still be an Aircamper). hydraulic
brakes, transponder, liberal use of composites or other modern materials,
etc. or something that represents the current builder that's not 100%
concerned about keeping to the plans.
Thanks!!!
Pat Panzera
Editor@ContactMagazine.com
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
HelsperSew@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Assembly milestone
Guys,
I have reached a milestone today. I was finally able to bring down my
one-piece wing from the wall and assemble it to the fuselage. Boy does it
feel good. Here are some pics to spur on the others behind me.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Gene,
Saturday I had to do a little last minute tweak on the landing gear
and finish making the cockpit covers so I did not get it up to the strip to put
together.Then Sunday the weather was messy.so I am off work Thursday and I
think I am going to put the wings and struts on it here at home and do a final
weight and balance,since I did it before I painted it. I have an asphalt
drive so it would be easier to do here than on a grass strip then this weekend
take it up to the strip for the final assembly. yes you can see the strip from
the road if you know where to look. If you are coming down Thursday or this
weekend give me a call on my cell at 731 267 0578 and I will tell how to get
here.
Robert Bush
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Met some this summer, that would really love to learn |
to fly
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital ScaleLess than a mile from my house, met
some that were longing to fly.
walt evans
NX140DL
"No one ever learned anything by talking"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Kraut
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale
Oh, and one other thing. I take a Sharpie and write "100" one one
bottle and "83" on the other as soon as I get more T-88. Keeps down the
confusion when mixing and chances for error.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Robert, If the weather is good I will make it thursday and give you a
call. If I can be of any help getting your Piet ready let me know.
Gene
Cel 731-336-6893
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Met some this summer, that would really love to learn |
to fly
What a waste of a hangar! If only they knew what they were wandering around
ignoring.
On 12/4/07, walt evans <waltdak@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Less than a mile from my house, met some that were longing to fly.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
> "No one ever learned anything by talking"
> Ben Franklin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Brian Kraut <brian.kraut@engalt.com>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2007 2:08 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale
>
>
> Oh, and one other thing. I take a Sharpie and write "100" one one bottle
> and "83" on the other as soon as I get more T-88. Keeps down the confusion
> when mixing and chances for error.
>
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
>
--
Glenn Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Machined tail hinges |
I bought a set of those hinges (the official start of my Piet project, I
suppose...) I haven't used them yet but everyone I showed them to was
impressed with the quality, especially for $40 for 9. IIRC they were made by
P.F. Beck in North Carolina.
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Michals" <aircamperace@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: [piet] RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vi Kaplers hinges
> I am getting a little ahead of myself. I meant Brodhead '07.
>
>
> do not archive
>
> Ryan Michals <aircamperace@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know who was selling the machined hinges adjacent to the
Vi's hinges at Brodhead '08? I purchased the hinges but he had some other
products I am interested in.
>
> Ryan M
>
> Scott Knowlton <flyingscott_k@hotmail.com> wrote:
> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } Gents
>
> I purchased Vi's hinges three years ago at Broadhead. Bill is correct
about the # 8 screws. I purchased 8-32 x 11/2 machine screws from Leavens
Aviation in Toronto (ANM MS24693558) along with self locking nuts and
washers. The countersink holes of Vi's hinges accept the machine screws
heads perfectly.
>
> My two bits...
>
> Scott Knowlton
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vi Kaplers hinges
> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:17:19 -0500
> From: eng@canadianrogers.com
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
> Carson,
> I don't have Vi's hinges, so this isn't speaking from personal experience
with them, but...
> BHP's plans show the empennage hinges to be mounted with #8 screws. Let's
make the very safe assumption that these will be sufficient to carry the
load (based on a total of four screws per hinge assembly - two for each
component).
> Based on the dimension you have given, the holes in your hinges are .156"
(5/32" diameter holes). Don't know the precision of your measurement
(measured with a caliper or a ruler). In any case, the screw size closest to
that hole is a #8 screw (.164" diameter). If I were you, I would go with
#8-32 hardware (length to suit your particular build conditions - depending
whether you recess the hinges into the wood or not). See if the screws will
fit in the holes as-is. If necessary, open the holes in the hinges with a
11/64" drill (11/64" = .171", which will give you a nice .007" clearance).
As I understand it, Vi's hinges are made of cast aluminum, so it wouldn't be
a surprise at all if the holes were not perfect.
> If
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you ">Try it now.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Website for Pilots |
Check out this website!!!
_"Over the Airwaves"_ (http://overtheairwaves.com/)
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Digital Scale |
Glenn Thomas wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> I might have reacted a little quickly here. When I was starting out I would
read a post on the forum, contemplate my approach and wonder if everything I
had made thus far was junk, to learn later that it wasn't. That was very frustrating.
>
> The information on my website was put there because a friend of mine simply mixes
1:1 by mass using a scale considering this technique highly precise. I knew
he visited my site and this was a subtle way of informing him. I still think
my "discovery" is right. ...but your is most accurate and I will continue
as you have described.
>
> Thanks,
> Glenn
No worries Glen - my writing style occasionally comes out a little bombastic anyhow.
My intention with the quoted word "discovery" was to highlight the fact
that while the 1:1 volume ratio (fr T-88 that is) is correct, amounts of each
component required to achieve that are determined using the reactivity data which
is concerned only with weight (well, mass actually), not volume. Mixing by
weight is generally accepted in industry as the right way to do things where
tight control of properties is important. No intent to scare people, but only
to pass on some info to show how they may be able to exercise more precise control
over the consistency and quality of their adhesive mixes - hard to argue
with the positives there.
If your friend was mixing 1:1 by weight in an attempt to improve accuracy over
mixing 1:1 by volume, hoo boy was he on the wrong track! [Embarassed] ... he
had in fact ensured every batch would be as messed up as the others!
Mike D.
--------
Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150528#150528
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|