Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [multimachine] A new MM that uses small 4 cyl. engine blocks

Expand Messages
  • Shannon DeWolfe
    Howdy Pat, The concrete machines that Romig eluded to were the brainchild of one Lucien I. Yeomens. Finding Mr. Yeomens was one of the more time consuming
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Howdy Pat,

      The concrete machines that Romig eluded to were the brainchild of one
      Lucien I. Yeomens. Finding Mr. Yeomens was one of the more time
      consuming searches I've ever done. And, I still don't much about his
      machines except that they were massive.

      When the USA entered WWI (ostensibly due to the sinking of the
      Lusitania) we were in no position to ramp up munitions production. There
      were suggestions that rail car shops could be converted to arms
      manufacturing. Others wanted to build huge machine complexes that would
      have become excess to needs when the war ended. Mr. Yeomens' genius was
      that he understood that production of arms needed to start as soon as
      possible and as cheaply as possible. There was no time to cast and true
      huge machines of iron to produce cannon shells and barrels. And, then,
      what was to become of these very expensive machines after the war? If
      huge amounts of capital was tied-up in mills and lathes, they HAD to
      produce something. His idea of using concrete solved all the problems.
      The plants he supervised were producing artillery shells within 60 days
      of construction start. The machines were cheap to build and therefore
      disposable after the war. They could be built to any scale. (In fact, I
      read that a planer bed over 185 feet long was under construction when
      the armistice was signed. Because his method was so inexpensive, the
      planer was abandoned unfinished.)

      But, after several hours of reading, I am sad to report that not one
      instance of methods used to pour the machines could be found. So, I
      guess it would take some experimenting on junk blocks to find the right
      recipe of concrete and pour techniques.

      > "Aluminum does not react well to concrete so only iron blocks should
      be used for this."

      Have you considered epoxy and granite (E/G) for aluminum blocks (or even
      iron blocks)? Over at www.cnczone.com there is an extensive discussion
      (over 120 pages) about using E/G for mill and lathe construction. In our
      case, the E/G could be poured into and around the engine block to form a
      vibration damping core, leaving the flat block face bare to attach the
      X/Y table. The E/G is inert and will not react with the Al alloy in the
      block.

      I have only made it through about 20 pages so I still have a lot of
      reading to do. I have learned that building an E/G machine frame is not
      impossible for a low tech shop and it is not too expensive. Using E/G to
      fill voids in an engine block seems like a reasonable goal to me.

      Some links you might want to see:

      http://books.google.com/books?id=53AoAQAAIAAJ&dq=wartime%20lathe%20construction&pg=PA288#v=onepage&q&f=false

      http://books.google.com/books?id=w0ASAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA274&ots=ttwGMJIf_B&dq=PRACTICAL%20WARTIME%20SHELL%20MAKING&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q=PRACTICAL%20WARTIME%20SHELL%20MAKING&f=false

      http://books.google.com/books?id=x70UAAAAQAAJ&dq=Lucien%20I.%20Yeomans&pg=PA826#v=onepage&q=Lucien%20I.%20Yeomans&f=false

      Patents found with Google:
      http://www.google.com/patents?q=Lucien+I.+Yeomans&btnG=Search+Patents

      Discussion at www.cnczone.com:
      http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30155

      Regards,

      Mr. Shannon DeWolfe
      --I've taken to using Mr. because my name misleads folks on the WWW. I am a 54 year old fat man.


      On 6/29/2010 3:30 PM, Pat wrote:
      > Aluminum does not react well to concrete so only iron blocks should be used for this.
      >
    • Pat Delany
      Thank you, Thank you, Thank you Shannon!d Machinery magazine probably had just what we need. Lindsay certainly has a set but he is more of a crabby old bastard
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you, Thank you, Thank you Shannon!d
        Machinery magazine probably had just what we need. Lindsay certainly has a set but he is more of a crabby old bastard than I am. I would bet that they are in university libraries, but where?

        I would gladly swap my $300 Delta coupon for copies of the concrete tool articles.

        Pat


        From: Shannon DeWolfe <sdewolfe@...>
        To: multimachine@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, July 1, 2010 12:42:26 AM
        Subject: Re: [multimachine] A new MM that uses small 4 cyl. engine blocks

         

        Howdy Pat,

        The concrete machines that Romig eluded to were the brainchild of one
        Lucien I. Yeomens. Finding Mr. Yeomens was one of the more time
        consuming searches I've ever done. And, I still don't much about his
        machines except that they were massive.

        When the USA entered WWI (ostensibly due to the sinking of the
        Lusitania) we were in no position to ramp up munitions production. There
        were suggestions that rail car shops could be converted to arms
        manufacturing. Others wanted to build huge machine complexes that would
        have become excess to needs when the war ended. Mr. Yeomens' genius was
        that he understood that production of arms needed to start as soon as
        possible and as cheaply as possible. There was no time to cast and true
        huge machines of iron to produce cannon shells and barrels. And, then,
        what was to become of these very expensive machines after the war? If
        huge amounts of capital was tied-up in mills and lathes, they HAD to
        produce something. His idea of using concrete solved all the problems.
        The plants he supervised were producing artillery shells within 60 days
        of construction start. The machines were cheap to build and therefore
        disposable after the war. They could be built to any scale. (In fact, I
        read that a planer bed over 185 feet long was under construction when
        the armistice was signed. Because his method was so inexpensive, the
        planer was abandoned unfinished.)

        But, after several hours of reading, I am sad to report that not one
        instance of methods used to pour the machines could be found. So, I
        guess it would take some experimenting on junk blocks to find the right
        recipe of concrete and pour techniques.

        > "Aluminum does not react well to concrete so only iron blocks should
        be used for this."

        Have you considered epoxy and granite (E/G) for aluminum blocks (or even
        iron blocks)? Over at www.cnczone.com there is an extensive discussion
        (over 120 pages) about using E/G for mill and lathe construction. In our
        case, the E/G could be poured into and around the engine block to form a
        vibration damping core, leaving the flat block face bare to attach the
        X/Y table. The E/G is inert and will not react with the Al alloy in the
        block.

        I have only made it through about 20 pages so I still have a lot of
        reading to do. I have learned that building an E/G machine frame is not
        impossible for a low tech shop and it is not too expensive. Using E/G to
        fill voids in an engine block seems like a reasonable goal to me.

        Some links you might want to see:

        http://books.google.com/books?id=53AoAQAAIAAJ&dq=wartime%20lathe%20construction&pg=PA288#v=onepage&q&f=false

        http://books.google.com/books?id=w0ASAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA274&ots=ttwGMJIf_B&dq=PRACTICAL%20WARTIME%20SHELL%20MAKING&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q=PRACTICAL%20WARTIME%20SHELL%20MAKING&f=false

        http://books.google.com/books?id=x70UAAAAQAAJ&dq=Lucien%20I.%20Yeomans&pg=PA826#v=onepage&q=Lucien%20I.%20Yeomans&f=false

        Patents found with Google:
        http://www.google.com/patents?q=Lucien+I.+Yeomans&btnG=Search+Patents

        Discussion at www.cnczone.com:
        http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30155

        Regards,

        Mr. Shannon DeWolfe
        --I've taken to using Mr. because my name misleads folks on the WWW. I am a 54 year old fat man.

        On 6/29/2010 3:30 PM, Pat wrote:
        > Aluminum does not react well to concrete so only iron blocks should be used for this.
        >


      • gratian@gmail.com
        Hi all, I don t know if you guys have already seen this but here are a few of the Popular Mechanics JV Romig article links. The first one is a lathe with
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi all,

          I don't know if you guys have already seen this but here are a few of
          the Popular Mechanics JV Romig article links. The first one is a lathe
          with concrete bed:

          Six-Inch Turret Lathe (concrete bed)
          http://books.google.com/books?id=fdoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=RA1-PA129&dq=Romig&lr&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=RA1-PA129#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Bench Slotter
          http://books.google.com/books?id=atoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA786&dq=Romig&lr&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA786#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Jointer
          http://books.google.com/books?id=stoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA450&dq=Romig&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA450#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Radial Drill Press
          http://books.google.com/books?id=wNoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA687&dq=Romig&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA687#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Six-Inch Bench Shaper
          http://books.google.com/books?id=wd4DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&lr&pg=PA869#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Reboring Fixture
          http://books.google.com/books?id=ONoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA457&dq=Romig&lr&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA457#v=onepage&q=Romig&f=false

          Bench Hacksaw
          http://books.google.com/books?id=LNoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA941&dq=Romig&lr&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA941#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Tap and Reamer-Milling Fixture
          http://books.google.com/books?id=j9oDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=RA1-PA296&dq=Romig&lr&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=RA1-PA296#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Utility Bench Grinder
          http://books.google.com/books?id=P9oDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA466&dq=Romig&lr&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA466#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Large Capacity Arbor Press
          http://books.google.com/books?id=HdoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA775&dq=Romig&lr&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA775#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Jig Saw
          http://books.google.com/books?id=PNoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA950&dq=Romig&lr&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA950#v=onepage&q&f=false

          Machine Tool Slides for the Home Shop
          http://books.google.com/books?id=puIDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA458&dq=Romig&lr&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA458#v=onepage&q&f=false

          This is not by J.V Romig but it is a cool project
          Surface Grinder
          http://www.dm.net/~lughaid/vest.htm

          Hope this helps
          regards,
          Gratian

          --- In multimachine@yahoogroups.com, Shannon DeWolfe <sdewolfe@...> wrote:
          >
          > Howdy Pat,
          >
          > The concrete machines that Romig eluded to were the brainchild of one
          > Lucien I. Yeomens. Finding Mr. Yeomens was one of the more time
          > consuming searches I've ever done. And, I still don't much about his
          > machines except that they were massive.
          >
          ...
        • Shannon DeWolfe
          As a follow up, here is a link that shows how much sand/gravel/epoxy to use to get a good fill in voids. I think E/G can be used to fill the cavities in an
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            As a follow up, here is a link that shows how much sand/gravel/epoxy to
            use to get a good fill in voids. I think E/G can be used to fill the
            cavities in an aluminum alloy engine block and to form a base around it.
            http://www.cnccookbook.com/CCMillEpoxyFill.htm

            Regards,

            Mr. Shannon DeWolfe
            --I've taken to using Mr. because my name misleads folks on the WWW. I am a 54 year old fat man.
          • Pat
            Thanks again Shannon My previous post shows that Mr. Yeomens was active many years later. Pat
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 4, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks again Shannon

              My previous post shows that Mr. Yeomens was active many years later.

              Pat

              --- In multimachine@yahoogroups.com, Shannon DeWolfe <sdewolfe@...> wrote:
              >
              > Howdy Pat,
              >
              > The concrete machines that Romig eluded to were the brainchild of one
              > Lucien I. Yeomens. Finding Mr. Yeomens was one of the more time
              > consuming searches I've ever done. And, I still don't much about his
              > machines except that they were massive.
              >
              > When the USA entered WWI (ostensibly due to the sinking of the
              > Lusitania) we were in no position to ramp up munitions production. There
              > were suggestions that rail car shops could be converted to arms
              > manufacturing. Others wanted to build huge machine complexes that would
              > have become excess to needs when the war ended. Mr. Yeomens' genius was
              > that he understood that production of arms needed to start as soon as
              > possible and as cheaply as possible. There was no time to cast and true
              > huge machines of iron to produce cannon shells and barrels. And, then,
              > what was to become of these very expensive machines after the war? If
              > huge amounts of capital was tied-up in mills and lathes, they HAD to
              > produce something. His idea of using concrete solved all the problems.
              > The plants he supervised were producing artillery shells within 60 days
              > of construction start. The machines were cheap to build and therefore
              > disposable after the war. They could be built to any scale. (In fact, I
              > read that a planer bed over 185 feet long was under construction when
              > the armistice was signed. Because his method was so inexpensive, the
              > planer was abandoned unfinished.)
              >
              > But, after several hours of reading, I am sad to report that not one
              > instance of methods used to pour the machines could be found. So, I
              > guess it would take some experimenting on junk blocks to find the right
              > recipe of concrete and pour techniques.
              >
              > > "Aluminum does not react well to concrete so only iron blocks should
              > be used for this."
              >
              > Have you considered epoxy and granite (E/G) for aluminum blocks (or even
              > iron blocks)? Over at www.cnczone.com there is an extensive discussion
              > (over 120 pages) about using E/G for mill and lathe construction. In our
              > case, the E/G could be poured into and around the engine block to form a
              > vibration damping core, leaving the flat block face bare to attach the
              > X/Y table. The E/G is inert and will not react with the Al alloy in the
              > block.
              >
              > I have only made it through about 20 pages so I still have a lot of
              > reading to do. I have learned that building an E/G machine frame is not
              > impossible for a low tech shop and it is not too expensive. Using E/G to
              > fill voids in an engine block seems like a reasonable goal to me.
              >
              > Some links you might want to see:
              >
              > http://books.google.com/books?id=53AoAQAAIAAJ&dq=wartime%20lathe%20construction&pg=PA288#v=onepage&q&f=false
              >
              > http://books.google.com/books?id=w0ASAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA274&ots=ttwGMJIf_B&dq=PRACTICAL%20WARTIME%20SHELL%20MAKING&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q=PRACTICAL%20WARTIME%20SHELL%20MAKING&f=false
              >
              > http://books.google.com/books?id=x70UAAAAQAAJ&dq=Lucien%20I.%20Yeomans&pg=PA826#v=onepage&q=Lucien%20I.%20Yeomans&f=false
              >
              > Patents found with Google:
              > http://www.google.com/patents?q=Lucien+I.+Yeomans&btnG=Search+Patents
              >
              > Discussion at www.cnczone.com:
              > http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30155
              >
              > Regards,
              >
              > Mr. Shannon DeWolfe
              > --I've taken to using Mr. because my name misleads folks on the WWW. I am a 54 year old fat man.
              >
              >
              > On 6/29/2010 3:30 PM, Pat wrote:
              > > Aluminum does not react well to concrete so only iron blocks should be used for this.
              > >
              >
            • Richard Underwood
              I m including a copy of an article submitted to the Journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1917, Volume 39. It is an article submitted by
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 4, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm including a copy of an article submitted to the "Journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers" in 1917, Volume 39. It is an article submitted by Lucien I. Yeomans of Chicago. Notice the spelling of the last name is YeomAns, which could be part of the problem locating his works. Anyhow this seems like an introductory article focused on fast startup of munitions production and only mentions concrete as machine bases.

                Article follows:

                PRACTICAL WARTIME SHELL
                MAKING

                By LUCIEN I. YEOMANS, CHICAGO, ILL.
                Member of the Society

                SO many utterly foolish statements have been offered the
                public in regard to the manufacture of munitions and
                the possibility of this or that automobile factory or implement
                works, or other equally ill-adapted shop, being turned upon
                very short notice into a shell factory, that it seems well to
                consider of how Httle value for the manufacture of munitions
                is the present equipment of the average shop.

                It should be emphasized that outside of the already existing
                munitions plants, the old equipment which manufacturers
                brought to the new business of shell making consisted mostly
                of their money, their credit, and the nucleus of an organiza-
                tion. Even the old floor space was infrequently used. The
                machinery and tools were more than ninety per cent new and
                it is significant that the greatest success has been made by
                those companies which were not even owners of machine shops
                of any kind.

                It is well for the mechanical engineers and the manufac-
                turers to review carefully accepted methods of munitions pro-
                duction and to ascertain just what time-honored precedents
                may be abandoned, what " red tape " may be cut, what tradi-
                tions of the mechanic arts are sacred but unnecessary, where
                the comers may be cut and the result attained economically,
                directly, and without delay.

                It would seem ridiculous to construct an office building of
                steel and terra cotta for the field headquarters of an army
                division, but we see nothing strange in the equally ridiculous
                proposition of a nicely built permanent factory for the com-
                paratively simple operations of machining shells.

                There is a strange twist in our mental conception which
                permits an engine for one purpose to be nicely housed in a
                jjressed-brick and tile-lined structure, while another equally
                expensive and nicely made engine may be properly located on
                the open deck of a vessel, entirely unprotected from the
                weather. It is the same deference to tradition that makes us
                assume that macliine tools must be guarded from every
                exposure, and we fail to see readily that their performance
                would be equally good for unusual service if they were heavily
                coated with rust on every idle surface.

                The suggestions made here for emergency factory con-
                struction are to be understood as applicable strictly to emer-
                gency conditions and to meet a demand for an unusual amount
                of ammunition with the least possible delay and in no way as
                suggestions for permanent, private or Government arsenal
                construction.

                First must be considered locality with reference to labor
                supply and transportation. Within easy reach of all our large
                centers of population may be found level, unoccupied, natur-
                ally well-drained acreage that is suitable for the purpose and
                that is gridironed by railroads. These are the sole require-
                ments for such a plan.

                The essential difference between this method and the con-
                ventional one is in the assumption that this particular machine
                work is no more an indoor occupation than is carpentry, brick
                laying, ear repairing, or structural ironwork, and that in such
                emergency it should promptly be decided that outdoor equip-
                ment is satisfactory.

                Final inspection, cleaning, painting, tool making, etc.,
                would be provided for in fully enclosed buildings at the
                delivery end of the plant; but the large part of the work
                would be performed with the lightest kind of shelter over
                machines, operators, and transfer track, and in the opinion
                of the writer circumstances would not always justify even
                this.

                The dimensions of the plant should be determined by the
                size of shell to be manufactured, and imits of a given hourly
                capacity would be located between, and perpendicular to, two
                lines of railroad siding at the ends of the plant. One track
                would be entirely a receiving track and the one at the opposite
                side a shipping track. The distance between the tracks would
                represent the proper length of each unit to avoid congestion
                and afford the simplest movement and transfer of product.

                The number of units required, as so determined, would estab-
                lish the other general dimension of the plant.

                Assuming that the shell was to be the well-known British
                9.2-in. high-explosive and the required output 250 per hour,
                the general dimensions of the plant would be approximately
                1000 ft. long by 300 ft. wide, and it would contain six units
                each capable of producing 42 shells per hour.

                Each unit, commencing at the rear of the plant, would start
                with an unloading platform and extend in a double row of
                opposed machines for the different operations toward the
                finishing end, where the machinery installation would be
                replaced by hand operations and inspection, to the packing
                and shipping track.

                From the end of the machine installation to the finishing
                end a single-story shelter would be built to house these opera-
                tions and also the tool maintenance sections.

                All machine tools would necessarily be horizontally belted.
                but since space is not considered, the convenience of having all
                transmission machinery within easy reach is a consideration.

                In the construction of the plant, lines of concrete piers
                would be located to carry the line shafting, storm water drains
                would parallel the lines of piers, concrete foundation walls
                for the machine tools would come next, and transfer tracks
                intermediate the machine foundations.

                Throughout the length of each machine-foundation wall
                would extend a cutting compound drain to a sump and pump
                at the end of the line or at intermediate locations. From each
                concrete pan under or at the machines would extend a chip
                channel, having a shghtly raised bottom, connecting with chip
                tanks sunken in tlie ground and covered, but readily removable
                by the cranes.

                Between each two rows of machines would be an industrial
                railway upon which would be operated platform ears for
                transfer. At each machine would be car-floor-height platforms
                from and to which all tools and material would be transferred.

                Such a complete plant could be erected and operated to
                capacity within 60 days from the time authority was given to
                build it.

                The purpose of this paper is to invite discussion, suggest a
                practical departure from the conventional and present a
                method of emergency construction that it is hoped will be of
                some benefit.

                A complete series of machines for all shell-making opera-
                tions could be designed along lines that would permit of their
                construction in immense quantities within 30 days from the
                time when the necessity for them arose, and at a rate of output
                that would supply any conceivable demand within the fol-
                lowing 60 days.

                The United States Government could easily be prepared to
                deUver such machines in the desired daily quantities within
                30 days by the following method :

                In each selected industrial center estabUsh a Government
                storage plant in which would be stored the necessary patterns,
                jigs and equipment to make such machines ; and in which
                would also be kept a list of the plants in the territory
                equipped to make the required parts. Upon order from
                Washington the patterns would be shipped to the designated
                foundries and, beginning with the third day, castings would
                be received at the rate of one casting a day per pattern. It
                would probably require about three weeks to manufacture the
                various working parts of the machine, but within 30 days at
                the outside, completed machines would be ready to run in the
                munition plants. The number of machines added to the
                equipment daily would be the same as the number of patterns
                from which castings were made. This record could be bet-
                tered by stocking in the warehouse the various machine parts,
                aside from the large bed eastings, sufficient to make up
                machines of a desired daily output during the period found
                necessary. If this were done completed machines could be
                delivered to the munition plants within a week of authoriza-
                tion by the government.

                Ten such manufacturing centers could be established, as for
                example, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo, Pitts-
                burgh, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Birmingham, St. Louis, and
                Chicago, and within 30 days each unit could be producing
                shell-making machines at the rate of from 10 to 40 machines
                a day, depending on the size and nature of the machine being
                liroduced. Moreover, the total cost to the U. S. Government
                for the patterns, jigs, and equipment necessary for such a
                plan would be approximately but $1,000,000.


                Pat wrote:
                 

                Thanks again Shannon

                My previous post shows that Mr. Yeomens was active many years later.

                Pat

                --- In multimachine@yahoogroups.com, Shannon DeWolfe <sdewolfe@...> wrote:
                >
                > Howdy Pat,
                >
                > The concrete machines that Romig eluded to were the brainchild of one
                > Lucien I. Yeomens. Finding Mr. Yeomens was one of the more time
                > consuming searches I've ever done. And, I still don't much about his
                > machines except that they were massive.
                >
                > When the USA entered WWI (ostensibly due to the sinking of the
                > Lusitania) we were in no position to ramp up munitions production. There
                > were suggestions that rail car shops could be converted to arms
                > manufacturing. Others wanted to build huge machine complexes that would
                > have become excess to needs when the war ended. Mr. Yeomens' genius was
                > that he understood that production of arms needed to start as soon as
                > possible and as cheaply as possible. There was no time to cast and true
                > huge machines of iron to produce cannon shells and barrels. And, then,
                > what was to become of these very expensive machines after the war? If
                > huge amounts of capital was tied-up in mills and lathes, they HAD to
                > produce something. His idea of using concrete solved all the problems.
                > The plants he supervised were producing artillery shells within 60 days
                > of construction start. The machines were cheap to build and therefore
                > disposable after the war. They could be built to any scale. (In fact, I
                > read that a planer bed over 185 feet long was under construction when
                > the armistice was signed. Because his method was so inexpensive, the
                > planer was abandoned unfinished.)
                >
                > But, after several hours of reading, I am sad to report that not one
                > instance of methods used to pour the machines could be found. So, I
                > guess it would take some experimenting on junk blocks to find the right
                > recipe of concrete and pour techniques.
                >
                > > "Aluminum does not react well to concrete so only iron blocks should
                > be used for this."
                >
                > Have you considered epoxy and granite (E/G) for aluminum blocks (or even
                > iron blocks)? Over at www.cnczone.com there is an extensive discussion
                > (over 120 pages) about using E/G for mill and lathe construction. In our
                > case, the E/G could be poured into and around the engine block to form a
                > vibration damping core, leaving the flat block face bare to attach the
                > X/Y table. The E/G is inert and will not react with the Al alloy in the
                > block.
                >
                > I have only made it through about 20 pages so I still have a lot of
                > reading to do. I have learned that building an E/G machine frame is not
                > impossible for a low tech shop and it is not too expensive. Using E/G to
                > fill voids in an engine block seems like a reasonable goal to me.
                >
                > Some links you might want to see:
                >
                > http://books.google.com/books?id=53AoAQAAIAAJ&dq=wartime%20lathe%20construction&pg=PA288#v=onepage&q&f=false
                >
                > http://books.google.com/books?id=w0ASAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA274&ots=ttwGMJIf_B&dq=PRACTICAL%20WARTIME%20SHELL%20MAKING&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q=PRACTICAL%20WARTIME%20SHELL%20MAKING&f=false
                >
                > http://books.google.com/books?id=x70UAAAAQAAJ&dq=Lucien%20I.%20Yeomans&pg=PA826#v=onepage&q=Lucien%20I.%20Yeomans&f=false
                >
                > Patents found with Google:
                > http://www.google.com/patents?q=Lucien+I.+Yeomans&btnG=Search+Patents
                >
                > Discussion at www.cnczone.com:
                > http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30155
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > Mr. Shannon DeWolfe
                > --I've taken to using Mr. because my name misleads folks on the WWW. I am a 54 year old fat man.
                >
                >
                > On 6/29/2010 3:30 PM, Pat wrote:
                > > Aluminum does not react well to concrete so only iron blocks should be used for this.
                > >
                >

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.