Re: [Harp-L] Re: Embossing v Burnishing

[Joe and Cass Leone <leone@xxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:40 AM, HTownFess wrote:

> Well, the problem I see is that according to the definitions of
> swaging I can find, the term "swaging" does not fit the operation of
> raising bosses along the insides of the reedslots to reduce clearance
> between reed and slot as well as "embossing" does.  Swaging appears to
> apply to changing the inner or outer diameter of *tubing*, or forcing
> metal into dies to shape its exterior.  The boss on a reedslot does
> not assume the shape of a die, nor is a die used to form it.


>   Swaging
> may be used to reduce clearances, but it's a different physical  
> method(s).

Okey, isn't that what we're doing? pushing metal to reduce clearances.
> I concede that dictionary and encyclopedia definitions may be
> misleading me.

Yes, I agree. Even though these men were brilliant in their field(s)  
they didn't work with their hands. And sometimes their description  
leaves something to be debatable. But, they did the best they could  
with the language they had (at the time). I sometimes hear phrases,  
and , like George Carlin, I like to take them apart.

>   However, I'd say the verb needed is the one commonly
> used, as my 1969 edition of Webster's Seventh New Collegiate
> Dictionary defines "emboss" as "to raise in relief from a surface."
> That's the aforementioned boss ("a protuberant part or body") on the
> inside of a reedslot.

Okey, but I'm not quite getting your meaning of boss. In machine  
work, a boss is a section used to affix something. It's a fixture  
point. In other words, it is THE boss of the fixture. In other words,  
it MAKES the whole thing work. Example: what 'I' would call a rivet  
boss, many would call a rivet 'pad'.

>   It defines "swage" as "to shape by means of a
> swage," with the noun defined as "a tool used by workers in metals for
> shaping their work by holding it on the work, or the work on it and
> striking with a hammer or sledge."  I submit that anyone who tries to
> reduce their reedslot clearances with a sledge will wish they had
> embossed instead :-).

See, here is a perfect example of why I said that Webster (and men of  
his ilk) aren't always perfect themselves in describing things. In  
tool parlance. a sledge has a cutoff point of 6 lbs 14 oz. That's a 6  
pound head and a 14 ounce handle (usually Hickory). You would want to  
use Hickory because it has give and won't tear up your wrists and  
elbows like some other woods (ash, maple) tend to do.

The item that Webster (and his clones) are referring to are called  
'Mauls' and usually weigh in the 2 pound range. Some people call them  
a 'baby sledge'. Even a blacksmith would quickly run out of steam  
using a real sledge.

 Machinists and ball peen hammers usually weigh in the 9 to 10 ounce  
range and are capable of much finer work. An engraver would use a 2  
3/4 ounce hammer named after his trade. I use a 0.85 ounce brass  
hammer on my harps.
> It seems to me one could develop swaging dies for reedslots, some kind
> of giant pliers with swaging jaws: get the reed out of the way by
> pivoting or removal, squeeze reedslot with tool to force entire sides
> out.

How would you 'index' such a tool. In other words. you would need to  
be able to position this tool in EXACTLY the right place for it to  
give uniform results. Then there would have to be stops built into it  
to guarantee that an EXACT amount of pressure was applied on all the  
jobs attempted. I believe that working by eye gives sufficient  
(albeit slow) results.

>   Or create slot swaging dies for a press to stamp the slots a
> little tighter.

Okey, I'm with ya here. I'm working with ya. I think that the best  
result would be that after reed plates are punched, they should be  
slurry honed flat on the surface that the reeds will be mounted to  
(in order to remove the rounded entry point of the male dies). In  
cases of chromos, whose reeds mount to BOTH sides of the plates, the  
bottoms of the plates, or die exit points should be stropped.  
Inasmuch as they don't have the same rounded entry to the slot  
shoulders.

>   Maybe the operation of rolling a glass cutter
> alongside the slot qualifies as swaging, mechanically, or the way some
> people increase the reed's width instead of narrowing the slot.

Yes, pushing down along the slot sides does qualify as swaging.
> But I think swaging would be a misnomer where embossing is concerned.
> Whereas with burnishing it was the physical action of rubbing back and
> forth that misled people, with swaging I think it's mainly the concept
> of reducing clearance that's deceptive, though the physical action
> does not fit well either.

Burnishing only smoothes surfaces. It really only amounts to rubbing,  
doesn't use the amount of force that swaging requires. Sort of a  
polishing as in: 'this part was hand rubbed'. Sometimes you use  
compound, sometimes you don't but usually it is accomplished with a  
hard wood, sometimes steel or copper wool. Not the same as the other  
functions as it doesn't change the metals mass appreciably enough to  
matter much.

I used to take all my harps new and snap a double edged razor blade  
in half and slip both halves under the reeds and burnish out all the  
scratches...and sometimes even the dull looking micro fine milling  
grooves. This changed the reeds very little and if anything made them  
more responsive. There wasn't enough pressure there to 'fatten' the  
reeds, so you couldn't call it swaging, and it was FAR from being  
embossing. Actually the opposite of embossing.
> Having been part of the initial nomenclature dust-up ca. 2000, I
> suggest we swage the lid on this can of worms firmly in place . . .
> I'll bring the sledge :-).

I have to go along with that emotion. While I have no problem(s)  
talking about it, it really comes down to this: Whatever a person  
feels is correct for THEM keeping in mind that once a person explains  
just WHAT they are doing, it all becomes clear. This is why I have  
always said that you can learn a lot from books, but sometimes hands  
on is the best way to learn.

> Embossing is not perfect as nomenclature,
> but gives the clearest idea of what the person working on the slot is
> trying to do: if you understand it as raising a ridge (whose height is
> controlled by you, *not by a die that ultimately restricts it*) from
> the side of the slot, it's better conceptually, IMO.

IF you're talking height. If you're talking width, then I believe  
swaging is a better term. Embossing is a wonderful thing for keeping  
wind savers from sticking to reed plates. Inasmuch as it holds the  
wind saver just that teensie little bit extra off OF said plates.  
Swaging is a wonderful thing and easy to do with maleable metals and  
pushes metal sideways and cuts a gap between reed and reed plate slot  
wall from (say) 2 thousandths down to (say) 1 thousandth.

Now you could already make reed plates and slots with the lower  
tolerance to begin with but as I have written oooooh, maybe 8-9 years  
ago, the parts would cost more (exponentially) as ALL machine  
operators will ask the FIRST question. Which is: "How much tolerance  
are you asking for?" This figure is usually given in thousandths.

Keep in mind that if a reed plate slot has a tolerance, the reeds  
(ALSO) must have a tolerance. While it is sloppily acceptable to have  
a skinny reed in a fat slot, there is nothing worse than a fat reed  
in a SKINNY slot. That dog won't hunt.  :)

It's all in fun though. And everyone needs to consider their  
instrument(s) a love affair.

smokey-joe
> Stephen Schneider
>
> On Jan 2, 6:00 am, "Aongus MacCana" <amacc...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > As a sometime mechanical engineer may I act the nerd and suggest  
> > that the
> > appropriate term for this technique is swaging.
> > Beannachtaí
> > Aongus Mac Cana
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH,http://www.spah.org
> > Har...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l