Tom Gardner still here?

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

Are you still making brushes?
I have a question about them.

Lloyd

[Karl Townsend]

Na, he gave up and sent all the manufacturing to China.
<ducking and running>

I'm sure he'll be along shortly.

karl

[Tom Gardner]

How can I help?

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks> fired this volley in
news:wIOdnXOEeqqlzRvP...@giganews.com:

>> Are you still making brushes?
>> I have a question about them.
>>
>> Lloyd
>>
> How can I help?

Tom,

I have to figure out what the expected shedding of a brush might be (for
a maintenance document).

It's a commercially available rotary scrubber 2" diameter, with 0.016"
nylon fill (no specs except diameter), fused tufts in a polypropylene
disc, each tuft about 0.875" long. So, pretty stiff.

They'll be rubbing on the surface of a 40-mesh stainless steel screen,
and the material being screened is not abrasive.

In the action of scrubbing on that screen, each bristle will deflect no
more than about 10 degrees from its attachment, and the brush will
oscillate slowly, so they will deflect both ways about 10 degrees. (at
the tip, bending uniformly over their length, I expect).

There's only enough pressure on the brush to ensure that it keeps the
holes in the screen clear of gummy stuff which blinds it rapidly -- maybe
as much as 8 ounces of down-pressure (but I think that's meaningless
unless you know how many bristles, how densely tufted, etc... and I don't
know those things).

We sized the screen openings so the bristles cannot fall through if they
shed, to keep lost filaments out of the product stream. Wear particles
are not a problem, even if they go through.

We have the option to "break them in" before installation, if that would
be wise.

I told the customer I guessed the filaments would wear out in length
before they began to shed; but I'd like to confirm, and figure out some
sort of estimation on their life or wear rate.

Thanks, Tom.
Lloyd

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:35:48 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:

>Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks> fired this volley in
>news:wIOdnXOEeqqlzRvP...@giganews.com:
>
>>> Are you still making brushes?
>>> I have a question about them.
>>>
>>> Lloyd
>>>
>> How can I help?
>
>Tom,
>
>I have to figure out what the expected shedding of a brush might be (for
>a maintenance document).
>
>It's a commercially available rotary scrubber 2" diameter, with 0.016"
>nylon fill (no specs except diameter), fused tufts in a polypropylene
>disc, each tuft about 0.875" long. So, pretty stiff.
>
>They'll be rubbing on the surface of a 40-mesh stainless steel screen,
>and the material being screened is not abrasive.

Maybe I'm not aware of how mesh sizes are measured, but 1/40 = 0.025",
so a 0.016" nylon bristle would seem to go through it.

>In the action of scrubbing on that screen, each bristle will deflect no
>more than about 10 degrees from its attachment, and the brush will
>oscillate slowly, so they will deflect both ways about 10 degrees. (at
>the tip, bending uniformly over their length, I expect).
>
>There's only enough pressure on the brush to ensure that it keeps the
>holes in the screen clear of gummy stuff which blinds it rapidly -- maybe
>as much as 8 ounces of down-pressure (but I think that's meaningless
>unless you know how many bristles, how densely tufted, etc... and I don't
>know those things).

Yeah, try to get all the critical info to Mr. Brush Engineer.

>We sized the screen openings so the bristles cannot fall through if they
>shed, to keep lost filaments out of the product stream. Wear particles
>are not a problem, even if they go through.

Got nylon magnets? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

>We have the option to "break them in" before installation, if that would
>be wise.
>
>I told the customer I guessed the filaments would wear out in length
>before they began to shed; but I'd like to confirm, and figure out some
>sort of estimation on their life or wear rate.

That's the same SWAG I'd make. Tawm'll probably know, or at least be
able to direct you to the info, though. Um, unless they're Chiwanese
brushes. In that case, he's likely to "Gibbs" you upside the haid.

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> fired this volley in
news:mtbd89pd78nc8mjc4...@4ax.com:

> Maybe I'm not aware of how mesh sizes are measured, but 1/40 = 0.025",
> so a 0.016" nylon bristle would seem to go through it.

Mesh size most usually refers to "wires per inch". Wires often have more
than zero diameter. (in case you didn't know that already)

Since we work with chemical compounding automation, milling machinery,
and automatic screening machinery -- Y'think we might know something
about the size of the wires used to weave the screen?

Look up woven wire cloth -- fun ride if you go through ALL the details.

I wasn't asking him if the filaments would go through the screens. We
already worked all that out, thanks.

I was asking him what his experience was with shedding, so I could put
something more than a friggin' GUESS in a maintenance manual.


Lloyd

[Bob La Londe]

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA279DC063F87Cll...@216.168.3.70...

I hear ya Lloyd, but I've seen you not answer the question asked once or
twice two. LOL.

Frustratin' idden' it?

LOL.






---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:37:22 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> fired this volley in
>news:mtbd89pd78nc8mjc4...@4ax.com:
>
>> Maybe I'm not aware of how mesh sizes are measured, but 1/40 = 0.025",
>> so a 0.016" nylon bristle would seem to go through it.
>
>Mesh size most usually refers to "wires per inch". Wires often have more
>than zero diameter. (in case you didn't know that already)

Knew the latter. <g> Thought it was openings-per-inch. Now I know.
Thanks.

>Since we work with chemical compounding automation, milling machinery,
>and automatic screening machinery -- Y'think we might know something
>about the size of the wires used to weave the screen?

One would soitenly hope, oui?

>Look up woven wire cloth -- fun ride if you go through ALL the details.

I may do that...in between watching the several Harry Potter movies I
brought home from the library today. I have an actual weekend to
myself for once!

>I wasn't asking him if the filaments would go through the screens. We
>already worked all that out, thanks.

Grok that, but you need the nylon magnet for the _top_ side of the
screen.

>I was asking him what his experience was with shedding, so I could put
>something more than a friggin' GUESS in a maintenance manual.

That's always nice. We all just loooove manuals written by clueless
managers and such, don't we? <sigh> Kudos on trying to do the best
you can. So few do nowadays.

I just received a replacement stainless steel transplant shovel from
Lee Valley Tools in Canuckistan last week. They heard "broken" and
sent the new one, asking that I return the dead one in the same box
using their supplied postage-paid label. Those guys know customer
service!

[Tom Gardner]

You're right, the brushes will wear much more than shed. Nylon is the
best fill for the application. They will last a long time! But, there
is no way to predict the amount of wear or shedding without
experimentation. Whatever you document will be consistent. I don't
think breaking them in will make any difference, just remove any loose
fill .

[Tom Gardner]

I still want that brass magnet you promised me!

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> fired this volley in

news:uetd89h7l9difhfh6...@4ax.com:

>>Mesh size most usually refers to "wires per inch". Wires often have
>>more than zero diameter. (in case you didn't know that already)
>
> Knew the latter. <g> Thought it was openings-per-inch. Now I know.
> Thanks.

Heh! Think about it, Larry! You'll go home, have supper, think about it
some more... THEN LAUGH!

Wires-per-inch and openings-per-inch say exactly the same thing. What is
never said when MESH is specified is how big the holes are. For that,
you need to go to the specs on a particular screen... see the wire size.
Usually, they calculate the opening size for you, too, but if not, its
just simple arithmetic; invert the mesh and subtract the wire size from
that.

There are several 'standards' concerning how thick the wires should be
(bolting, milling, etc.), but it boils down to getting the specs, to make
sure.

Then there is "space cloth", where not the wires or openings per inch are
specified, but the actual sizes of the holes.

Fortunately or unfortunately - depending on how you look at it - we build
machines from the ground up to do things with explosive substances nobody
has ever built one for, before. So sometimes we bump up against limits
in the industry's general experience with how certain tools or machines
behave in these applications. We do a lot of scouring of other
industries' experience, too, but still often come up goose-egg.

Lloyd


Lloyd

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

"Bob La Londe" <no...@none.com99> fired this volley in news:l66opn$c3b$1
@dont-email.me:

>
> I hear ya Lloyd, but I've seen you not answer the question asked once
or
> twice two. LOL.
>
> Frustratin' idden' it?

No... I was just trying to educate Larry on what we'd already done, and
already know. If I took exception to anything, it was just that we might
not be thoughtful enough to consider the potential for loose bristles
getting into the product stream. Stuff like that is what we get paid
for.

Tom hasn't answered yet; neither 'to' nor 'not to' the point.


LLoyd

[Larry Jaques]

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 06:20:57 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> fired this volley in
>news:uetd89h7l9difhfh6...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Mesh size most usually refers to "wires per inch". Wires often have
>>>more than zero diameter. (in case you didn't know that already)
>>
>> Knew the latter. <g> Thought it was openings-per-inch. Now I know.
>> Thanks.
>
>Heh! Think about it, Larry! You'll go home, have supper, think about it
>some more... THEN LAUGH!

You're exactly right. <g> The finer the wire, the larger the
openings.

>Wires-per-inch and openings-per-inch say exactly the same thing. What is
>never said when MESH is specified is how big the holes are. For that,
>you need to go to the specs on a particular screen... see the wire size.
>Usually, they calculate the opening size for you, too, but if not, its
>just simple arithmetic; invert the mesh and subtract the wire size from
>that.

That's a problem when some rebel comes out with a "heavy duty"
version. Then there's the metric v. Imperial measurement variance.

>There are several 'standards' concerning how thick the wires should be
>(bolting, milling, etc.), but it boils down to getting the specs, to make
>sure.

I guess your own standard has to be set and told in the product
manual, doesn't it?

>Then there is "space cloth", where not the wires or openings per inch are
>specified, but the actual sizes of the holes.

_That_ is the only one which truly makes sense.

>Fortunately or unfortunately - depending on how you look at it - we build
>machines from the ground up to do things with explosive substances nobody

You are so lucky you never grew up. <wink> Most of us boys have to
grow up and away from our explosive childhoods. I remember once when
my mother came running into my room, asking if I was OK. I had been
seated in front of my chemistry set playing with calcium carbide in a
Clorox bottle, and when I came to the end of squeezing it, the flame
decided to go back inside the bottle. The resultant explosion was a
bit smoky and loud, and it blew me onto my back. I was lying on the
floor in a smoky room laughing (out loud) at my stupidity when Mom
came in. Needless to say, I had a healthy new respect for carbide and
I got to thing about it for a month while my chem set was off limits.

>has ever built one for, before. So sometimes we bump up against limits
>in the industry's general experience with how certain tools or machines
>behave in these applications. We do a lot of scouring of other
>industries' experience, too, but still often come up goose-egg.

Do you have to buy various products to see if they meet your specs in
the machines, too, or is precision of screening less important? I
would think it to be fairly important for the consistency of your
compound(s).

One question came to mind when you described the machine. How do you
let in new material to screen? Is the brush lifted periodically so
more can flow under it, or does it just rush in from the side, or are
the clusters of bristles wide enough to allow material in between
them, or what?