Are these Punches? What is their Application?
Close
Login to Your Account
Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    682
    Likes (Received)
    138

    Default Are these Punches? What is their Application?

    p1000643.jpgp1000645.jpg
    I have a number of these similar punch-like items.
    All have .750 shank and all are marked with various 4 decimal inch sizes.
    The ends are ground and lapped at an angle.
    OAL about 2~3/8.

    What are they used for?


    p1000643.jpgp1000645.jpg

    p1000618.jpg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    134
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    11

    Default

    That is a pretty steep angle for a punch. My guess is that they are ejector pins for a mold that has sides corresponding to the angle shown on the pin. The relief area may be space for a compression spring. Normal punches are ground, but not polished.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    216
    Likes (Received)
    281

    Default

    They are certainly not punches with a polished surface like that

    I'm thinking towards the microscope / centre scope accessories for light reflection.

    John

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Central Florida USA
    Posts
    245
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    56
    Likes (Received)
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by irontoys View Post
    That is a pretty steep angle for a punch. My guess is that they are ejector pins for a mold that has sides corresponding to the angle shown on the pin. The relief area may be space for a compression spring. Normal punches are ground, but not polished.
    I doubt they could be for a mold with the corresponding angle as on the pin.There would have to be a flat on the head to keep it from rotating out of position. I've never seen an ejector pin that short or with that thick of a head. Some sort of gage is my guess.

  5. Likes 5 axis Fidia guy liked this post
  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    682
    Likes (Received)
    138

    Default

    I am puzzled still.
    Seems to be no provision to retain in some type of holder.
    The only punch I am familiar with that is often not flat is for paper, but not nearly that much angle.
    The lapped face is curious.
    There must be about 80 of them of various sizes, all with the same .750 'shank', but with various 4 place decimal sizes marked.

    Inspection seems logical, so far.

    I am hoping someone will actually recognize them and know exactly what is the correct use.

    Thanks everyone so far.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    82

    Default

    We used to make something similar to use in drill fixture bushings to check edge distance. Inserted the plug in the bushing, rotated the plug, remove the part and measure the distance from the scribed circle to the edge of part. Those look a little too well made for that, though.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3371
    Likes (Received)
    4039

    Default

    Rookies!

    Those are used for checking the blade angle of the pentometric fam. If the blade angle was too severe, you would have side fumbliing on the ambifacient lunar waneshaft. Nobody wants that.

    Of coarse, this is all irrelavent now since PATH introduced the Micro-Encabulater 2 years ago. Those pins will be a museum piece in a while.
    JR

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    682
    Likes (Received)
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JRIowa View Post
    Rookies!

    Those are used for checking the blade angle of the pentometric fam. If the blade angle was too severe, you would have side fumbliing on the ambifacient lunar waneshaft. Nobody wants that.

    Of coarse, this is all irrelavent now since PATH introduced the Micro-Encabulater 2 years ago. Those pins will be a museum piece in a while.
    JR
    I just KNEW someone would know.
    Thanks

  10. #9
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3371
    Likes (Received)
    4039

    Default

    I almost forgot to mention, if you have odd and even numbers on the guides, they are used on the rarer Rockwell unit which had counter rotating pentometric fams. IIRC, the odd numbers are used on the CCW fam and the even on the CW fam. Rotation is from the output end.

    They had a great idea to stop the side fumbling, but, Rockwell didn't fabulate the Amulite in the same process that GE did, resulting in a weaker base.
    JR

  11. Likes Eric M liked this post
  12. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    10,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    17300
    Likes (Received)
    5321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JRIowa View Post
    Rookies!

    Those are used for checking the blade angle of the pentometric fam. If the blade angle was too severe, you would have side fumbliing on the ambifacient lunar waneshaft. Nobody wants that.

    Of coarse, this is all irrelavent now since PATH introduced the Micro-Encabulater 2 years ago. Those pins will be a museum piece in a while.
    JR
    I thought these pins were used on the "Hand Held Model"

    The HHM for short....

  13. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    "Stuck in Lodi", Ca
    Posts
    3,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1842
    Likes (Received)
    1618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JRIowa View Post
    I almost forgot to mention, if you have odd and even numbers on the guides, they are used on the rarer Rockwell unit which had counter rotating pentometric fams. IIRC, the odd numbers are used on the CCW fam and the even on the CW fam. Rotation is from the output end.

    They had a great idea to stop the side fumbling, but, Rockwell didn't fabulate the Amulite in the same process that GE did, resulting in a weaker base.
    JR
    I hope you didn't sign a non-discloser letter…you know that was still proprietary information at Rockwell… right?

  14. #12
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3371
    Likes (Received)
    4039

    Default

    The only thing that I signed for Rockwell is covered by the atomic energy act of 1954. I can't tell you how I made parts for the nuclear warheads that were being built while I worked at Rocky Flats.

    Oh, I also helped with the first depleted uranium anti-tank rounds. That was a long time ago and if you look up Rocky flats, the entire plant is gone from the face of the earth.
    JR

  15. Likes scadvice liked this post
  16. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    582
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Default

    I used to work with a girl who's dad was in charge of the cleanup of that place. I think they mentioned at the time they were scraping a few FEET off of the whole area and processing it (or maybe packaging it for somewhere, I can't remember)

  17. #14
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3371
    Likes (Received)
    4039

    Default

    When the place got raided, it was by EPA and OSHA along with federal marshalls. So much contamination it wasn't even funny. some of the buiidings weren't to bad, but others were demolished, put in barrels and hauled away. The building that I worked in was highly contaminated along with most of the machines that were in it. We were all told how safe a place it was to work in.
    JR

  18. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    257
    Likes (Received)
    542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JRIowa View Post
    When the place got raided, it was by EPA and OSHA along with federal marshalls. So much contamination it wasn't even funny. some of the buiidings weren't to bad, but others were demolished, put in barrels and hauled away. The building that I worked in was highly contaminated along with most of the machines that were in it. We were all told how safe a place it was to work in.
    JR
    Wow...FBI was also involved, ouch: Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant - Wikipedia

    Snip from Wikipedia:

    "Subsequent to reports of environmental crimes being committed at Rocky Flats, the United States Department of Justice sponsored an FBI raid dubbed "Operation Desert Glow," which began at 9 a.m. on June 6, 1989.[34] The FBI entered the premises under the ruse of providing a terrorist threat briefing, and served its search warrant to Dominick Sanchini, Rockwell International's manager of Rocky Flats.[34]

    The FBI raid led to the formation of Colorado's first special grand jury, the juried testimony of 110 witnesses, reviews of 2,000 exhibits and ultimately a 1992 plea agreement in which Rockwell admitted to 10 federal environmental crimes and agreed to pay $18.5 million in fines out of its own funds. This amount was less than the company had been paid in bonuses for running the plant as determined by the GAO, and yet was also by far the highest hazardous-waste fine ever; four times larger than the previous record.[66] Due to DOE indemnification of its contractors, without some form of settlement being arrived at between the U.S. Justice Department and Rockwell the cost of paying any civil penalties would ultimately have been borne by U.S. taxpayers. While any criminal penalties allotted to Rockwell would not have been covered by U.S. taxpayers, Rockwell claimed that the Department of Energy had specifically exempted them from most environmental laws, including hazardous waste.[34][66][67][68][69][70]

    As forewarned by the prosecuting U.S. Attorney, Ken Fimberg (later Ken Scott),[71]:118 the Department of Justice's stated findings and plea agreement with Rockwell were heavily contested by its own, 23-member special grand jury. Press leaks by both members of the DOJ and the grand jury occurred in violation of secrecy Rule 6(e) regarding Grand Jury information. The public contest led to U.S. Congressional oversight committee hearings chaired by Congressman Howard Wolpe, which issued subpoenas to DOJ principals despite several instances of the DOJ's refusal to comply. The hearings, whose findings include that the Justice Department had "bargained away the truth,"[71]:98 ultimately still did not fully reveal the special grand jury's report to the public, which remains sealed by the DOJ courts.[66][71]:Ch 6, note 54

    The special grand jury report was nonetheless leaked to Westword and excerpts published in its Sep. 29, 1992 issue.[72] According to its subsequent publications, the Rocky Flats special grand jury had compiled indictments charging three DOE officials and five Rockwell employees with environmental crimes. The grand jury also wrote a report, intended for the public's consumption per their charter, lambasting the conduct of DOE and Rocky Flats contractors for "engaging in a continuing campaign of distraction, deception and dishonesty" and noted that Rocky Flats, for many years, had discharged pollutants, hazardous materials and radioactive matter into nearby creeks and Broomfield's and Westminster's water supplies.[73]

    The DOE itself, in a study released in December of the year prior to the FBI raid, called Rocky Flats' ground water the single greatest environmental hazard at any of its nuclear facilities.[66] From the grand jury's report: "The DOE reached this conclusion because the groundwater contamination was so extensive, toxic, and migrating toward the drinking water supplies for the Cities of Broomfield and Westminster, Colorado."[74]

    A class action lawsuit, Cook v. Rockwell International Corp., was filed in January 1990 against Rockwell and Dow Chemical (due to the indemnity of nuclear contractors, the award would have been paid by the federal government). Sixteen years later, the plaintiffs were awarded $926 million in economic damages, punitive damages, and interest. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently threw out the verdict and ordered a retrial. A further appeal was rejected without comment by the United States Supreme Court in June 2012.[75]

    In May 2016, U.S. District Judge John L. Kane gave preliminary approval for a $375 million settlement against the Rockwell International Corp. and Dow Chemical Co. Nearly 26 years later, approximately 13,000 to 15,000 eligible property owners could receive monetary payments for damages and decreased property values. Property and homeowners who owned property on June 7, 1989, the day the FBI raided the plant, are eligible to file a claim for property devaluation. The deadline to file a claim is June 1, 2017."

  19. #16
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3371
    Likes (Received)
    4039

    Default

    That's just for the site. You also need to look at this: https://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/

    But, that's were I learned about machining exotics. Rockwell also provided the turbo-encabulator training.
    JR


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •