|
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Somewhere I thought I saw a 3rd mfg of threaded terminals like stalok,
norseman - anybody remember the name? |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Could it be them?: http://www.suncorstainless.com/sscart/index2.html
Jeannette On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:42:53 -0700, santacruz wrote: Somewhere I thought I saw a 3rd mfg of threaded terminals like stalok, norseman - anybody remember the name? Jeannette aa6jh Bristol 32, San Francisco http://www.eblw.com/contepartiro/contepartiro.html |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Could it be them?: http://www.suncorstainless.com/sscart/index2.html
Jeannette On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:42:53 -0700, santacruz wrote: Somewhere I thought I saw a 3rd mfg of threaded terminals like stalok, norseman - anybody remember the name? Jeannette aa6jh Bristol 32, San Francisco http://www.eblw.com/contepartiro/contepartiro.html |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Hayn Enterprises in the US, made by Petersen in the UK. A full line of
stainless rigging parts, very high quality. See an assembly video at http://www.peteresen-stainless.co.uk It really does go together that easy. Available through West Marine by special order and others I'm sure. Rusty O |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Hayn Enterprises in the US, made by Petersen in the UK. A full line of
stainless rigging parts, very high quality. See an assembly video at http://www.peteresen-stainless.co.uk It really does go together that easy. Available through West Marine by special order and others I'm sure. Rusty O |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
As a gesture to the folks at that long-time ship-building town, here's
a corrected URL: http://www.petersen-stainless.co.uk/NewFiles/marprods.html Brian W On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 04:38:46 GMT, "Rusty O" wrote: Hayn Enterprises in the US, made by Petersen in the UK. A full line of stainless rigging parts, very high quality. See an assembly video at http://www.petersen-stainless.co.uk It really does go together that easy. Available through West Marine by special order and others I'm sure. Rusty O |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
As a gesture to the folks at that long-time ship-building town, here's
a corrected URL: http://www.petersen-stainless.co.uk/NewFiles/marprods.html Brian W On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 04:38:46 GMT, "Rusty O" wrote: Hayn Enterprises in the US, made by Petersen in the UK. A full line of stainless rigging parts, very high quality. See an assembly video at http://www.petersen-stainless.co.uk It really does go together that easy. Available through West Marine by special order and others I'm sure. Rusty O |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Thanks for the correction.
Rusty O |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Thanks for the correction.
Rusty O |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Quick Attach is the newest and simplist.
http://bosunsupplies.com/QuickAttach.cfm Also an article in Good Old Boat showing results of comparative tests against Sta-Loc and Norseman http://www.bosunsupplies.com/GoodOldBoatQuickAttach.CFM |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Quick Attach is the newest and simplist.
http://bosunsupplies.com/QuickAttach.cfm Also an article in Good Old Boat showing results of comparative tests against Sta-Loc and Norseman http://www.bosunsupplies.com/GoodOldBoatQuickAttach.CFM |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
On 25 Apr 2004 03:31:14 -0700, (paul martin)
wrote: Quick Attach is the newest and simplist. http://bosunsupplies.com/QuickAttach.cfm Also an article in Good Old Boat showing results of comparative tests against Sta-Loc and Norseman http://www.bosunsupplies.com/GoodOldBoatQuickAttach.CFM I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:07 -0700, "Evan Gatehouse"
wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. I was certainly thinking of a Nicopress style swage. In reading the boating press comparitive test, I understood the upper end of the test section was nicopressed with two sleeves, and a bolted clamp. Nicopress swages are used for light aircraft control cables (which are safety-critical.) Did I them misunderstand that the comparitive test was against a swage-compressed stainless terminal? Brian Whatcott Altus OK |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:07 -0700, "Evan Gatehouse"
wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. I was certainly thinking of a Nicopress style swage. In reading the boating press comparitive test, I understood the upper end of the test section was nicopressed with two sleeves, and a bolted clamp. Nicopress swages are used for light aircraft control cables (which are safety-critical.) Did I them misunderstand that the comparitive test was against a swage-compressed stainless terminal? Brian Whatcott Altus OK |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:07 -0700, "Evan Gatehouse"
wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. I looked over the test description again, more carefully this time. The description mentioned a "C. Sherman Johnson Co. swaged terminal, with the swaged wire assembly professionally made." and also mentioned that in all cases, the other end was secured with two nicopress swaged ferrules and a bolted clamp back up. In no case, was damage to the nicopress end noted, so I have to conclude that the double Nicopress fixing was superior to both roller-swaged, and swageless terminals, and remarkably cheaper. Is this reasonable, in your view? Brian Whatcott Altus OK |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:07 -0700, "Evan Gatehouse"
wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. I looked over the test description again, more carefully this time. The description mentioned a "C. Sherman Johnson Co. swaged terminal, with the swaged wire assembly professionally made." and also mentioned that in all cases, the other end was secured with two nicopress swaged ferrules and a bolted clamp back up. In no case, was damage to the nicopress end noted, so I have to conclude that the double Nicopress fixing was superior to both roller-swaged, and swageless terminals, and remarkably cheaper. Is this reasonable, in your view? Brian Whatcott Altus OK |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Comments below:
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:07 -0700, "Evan Gatehouse" wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. I looked over the test description again, more carefully this time. The description mentioned a "C. Sherman Johnson Co. swaged terminal, with the swaged wire assembly professionally made." and also mentioned that in all cases, the other end was secured with two nicopress swaged ferrules and a bolted clamp back up. In no case, was damage to the nicopress end noted, so I have to conclude that the double Nicopress fixing was superior to both roller-swaged, and swageless terminals, and remarkably cheaper. Is this reasonable, in your view? Brian Whatcott Altus OK No, not reasonable. I'm not great at explaining things but I'll try. The double nicopress fittings could support the load imposed in the tests only because they were clamping an eye that was passed around a 3" dia. pipe. Some of the load on the wire was passed to each nicopress fitting but most was carried by the friction inherent in the eye passing around the 3" pipe. Think of a rope around a bollard tied back to itself. -- Ken Heaton, Cape Breton Island, Canada kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Comments below:
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:07 -0700, "Evan Gatehouse" wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. I looked over the test description again, more carefully this time. The description mentioned a "C. Sherman Johnson Co. swaged terminal, with the swaged wire assembly professionally made." and also mentioned that in all cases, the other end was secured with two nicopress swaged ferrules and a bolted clamp back up. In no case, was damage to the nicopress end noted, so I have to conclude that the double Nicopress fixing was superior to both roller-swaged, and swageless terminals, and remarkably cheaper. Is this reasonable, in your view? Brian Whatcott Altus OK No, not reasonable. I'm not great at explaining things but I'll try. The double nicopress fittings could support the load imposed in the tests only because they were clamping an eye that was passed around a 3" dia. pipe. Some of the load on the wire was passed to each nicopress fitting but most was carried by the friction inherent in the eye passing around the 3" pipe. Think of a rope around a bollard tied back to itself. -- Ken Heaton, Cape Breton Island, Canada kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:01:31 -0300, "Ken Heaton"
wrote: Comments below: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:07 -0700, "Evan Gatehouse" wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. I looked over the test description again, more carefully this time. The description mentioned a "C. Sherman Johnson Co. swaged terminal, with the swaged wire assembly professionally made." and also mentioned that in all cases, the other end was secured with two nicopress swaged ferrules and a bolted clamp back up. In no case, was damage to the nicopress end noted, so I have to conclude that the double Nicopress fixing was superior to both roller-swaged, and swageless terminals, and remarkably cheaper. Is this reasonable, in your view? Brian Whatcott Altus OK No, not reasonable. I'm not great at explaining things but I'll try. The double nicopress fittings could support the load imposed in the tests only because they were clamping an eye that was passed around a 3" dia. pipe. Some of the load on the wire was passed to each nicopress fitting but most was carried by the friction inherent in the eye passing around the 3" pipe. Think of a rope around a bollard tied back to itself. Hmmm....you feel that the upper wire end was essentially locked to a pipe by friction. And so, I presume, you feel that the pipe was prevented from rotating, because if your explanation is correct, there would be a turning couple on the pipe. Actually, light aircraft use double Nicopress swages, but a preferred setup is to leave a slight loop before the second swage, in order to observe the onset of slipping failure in the first Nicopress. Others paint a mark at a joint. I know it doesn't sit well with people who feel they need to pay ??$80 a fitting, but Nicopress are strong and reliable enough to be used in a more demanding role than sailboat rigging. My opinion, naturally. Brian W |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:01:31 -0300, "Ken Heaton"
wrote: Comments below: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:07 -0700, "Evan Gatehouse" wrote: "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message .. . I found this test interesting. I was surprized how well the swaged cable performed. About as well as the best swageless. And swages cost about 50 cents each. These days, I take a chinese wire cutter ($15) and grind a swaging profile in the jaws, so the extended cost at these prices is one off $16 unit $16 ten off $25 unit $2.50 100 off $115 unit $1.15 I would very much like to know small quantity prices on all the swageless terminals on the market - amny offers? Brian Whatcott Altus OK p.s. This hand swager is capable of applying excessive deformations - easily, so a reasonable swaging jaw profile is required. I think you might be confusing a Nicropress type sleeve (that is applied with a lever type hand squeezer) with a swaged terminal that uses very expensive hydraulic roller presses that squeeze the swage terminal. I've seen Nicropress sleeves for about what you mention, but swage fittings run about $15 for a 1/4" for example. I looked over the test description again, more carefully this time. The description mentioned a "C. Sherman Johnson Co. swaged terminal, with the swaged wire assembly professionally made." and also mentioned that in all cases, the other end was secured with two nicopress swaged ferrules and a bolted clamp back up. In no case, was damage to the nicopress end noted, so I have to conclude that the double Nicopress fixing was superior to both roller-swaged, and swageless terminals, and remarkably cheaper. Is this reasonable, in your view? Brian Whatcott Altus OK No, not reasonable. I'm not great at explaining things but I'll try. The double nicopress fittings could support the load imposed in the tests only because they were clamping an eye that was passed around a 3" dia. pipe. Some of the load on the wire was passed to each nicopress fitting but most was carried by the friction inherent in the eye passing around the 3" pipe. Think of a rope around a bollard tied back to itself. Hmmm....you feel that the upper wire end was essentially locked to a pipe by friction. And so, I presume, you feel that the pipe was prevented from rotating, because if your explanation is correct, there would be a turning couple on the pipe. Actually, light aircraft use double Nicopress swages, but a preferred setup is to leave a slight loop before the second swage, in order to observe the onset of slipping failure in the first Nicopress. Others paint a mark at a joint. I know it doesn't sit well with people who feel they need to pay ??$80 a fitting, but Nicopress are strong and reliable enough to be used in a more demanding role than sailboat rigging. My opinion, naturally. Brian W |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Question below:
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... snipped for brevity I looked over the test description again, more carefully this time. The description mentioned a "C. Sherman Johnson Co. swaged terminal, with the swaged wire assembly professionally made." and also mentioned that in all cases, the other end was secured with two nicopress swaged ferrules and a bolted clamp back up. In no case, was damage to the nicopress end noted, so I have to conclude that the double Nicopress fixing was superior to both roller-swaged, and swageless terminals, and remarkably cheaper. Is this reasonable, in your view? Brian Whatcott Altus OK No, not reasonable. I'm not great at explaining things but I'll try. The double nicopress fittings could support the load imposed in the tests only because they were clamping an eye that was passed around a 3" dia. pipe. Some of the load on the wire was passed to each nicopress fitting but most was carried by the friction inherent in the eye passing around the 3" pipe. Think of a rope around a bollard tied back to itself. Hmmm....you feel that the upper wire end was essentially locked to a pipe by friction. And so, I presume, you feel that the pipe was prevented from rotating, because if your explanation is correct, there would be a turning couple on the pipe. Actually, the turning couple on the pipe is counter balanced by an equal turning couple inmposed by the dead end continuing down the other side back to the nicopress fitting. Actually, light aircraft use double Nicopress swages, but a preferred setup is to leave a slight loop before the second swage, in order to observe the onset of slipping failure in the first Nicopress. Others paint a mark at a joint. I know it doesn't sit well with people who feel they need to pay ??$80 a fitting, but Nicopress are strong and reliable enough to be used in a more demanding role than sailboat rigging. My opinion, naturally. Brian W I think I'm missing something here. Are you suggesting instead of using swaged or other ends on wire terminations we use a couple of nicropress sleeves and a large enough thimble to allow the wire to turn back on itself without weakening it by bending it too severely? (This is how all the terminations are done on a Laser II for instance but in that case the wires are rather small.) Note that in the test they felt they needed a 3" diameter pipe so as to not bend the cable too abruptly. What then goes through the thimble to retain the end terminated thus? A pin large enough in diameter to prevent the thimble from collapsing under load? Or are there thimbles available, strong enough to retain their shape under load with a small pin passing through like the one in a turnbuckle fork? The turnbuckle fork would have to be wider than usual to accommodate the thimble. Wouldn't this make for a rather bulky termination? We are talking about rigging sized wire, not skinny little cables like the type used on a light aircraft's controls. -- Ken Heaton, Cape Breton Island, Canada kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
Question below:
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... snipped for brevity I looked over the test description again, more carefully this time. The description mentioned a "C. Sherman Johnson Co. swaged terminal, with the swaged wire assembly professionally made." and also mentioned that in all cases, the other end was secured with two nicopress swaged ferrules and a bolted clamp back up. In no case, was damage to the nicopress end noted, so I have to conclude that the double Nicopress fixing was superior to both roller-swaged, and swageless terminals, and remarkably cheaper. Is this reasonable, in your view? Brian Whatcott Altus OK No, not reasonable. I'm not great at explaining things but I'll try. The double nicopress fittings could support the load imposed in the tests only because they were clamping an eye that was passed around a 3" dia. pipe. Some of the load on the wire was passed to each nicopress fitting but most was carried by the friction inherent in the eye passing around the 3" pipe. Think of a rope around a bollard tied back to itself. Hmmm....you feel that the upper wire end was essentially locked to a pipe by friction. And so, I presume, you feel that the pipe was prevented from rotating, because if your explanation is correct, there would be a turning couple on the pipe. Actually, the turning couple on the pipe is counter balanced by an equal turning couple inmposed by the dead end continuing down the other side back to the nicopress fitting. Actually, light aircraft use double Nicopress swages, but a preferred setup is to leave a slight loop before the second swage, in order to observe the onset of slipping failure in the first Nicopress. Others paint a mark at a joint. I know it doesn't sit well with people who feel they need to pay ??$80 a fitting, but Nicopress are strong and reliable enough to be used in a more demanding role than sailboat rigging. My opinion, naturally. Brian W I think I'm missing something here. Are you suggesting instead of using swaged or other ends on wire terminations we use a couple of nicropress sleeves and a large enough thimble to allow the wire to turn back on itself without weakening it by bending it too severely? (This is how all the terminations are done on a Laser II for instance but in that case the wires are rather small.) Note that in the test they felt they needed a 3" diameter pipe so as to not bend the cable too abruptly. What then goes through the thimble to retain the end terminated thus? A pin large enough in diameter to prevent the thimble from collapsing under load? Or are there thimbles available, strong enough to retain their shape under load with a small pin passing through like the one in a turnbuckle fork? The turnbuckle fork would have to be wider than usual to accommodate the thimble. Wouldn't this make for a rather bulky termination? We are talking about rigging sized wire, not skinny little cables like the type used on a light aircraft's controls. -- Ken Heaton, Cape Breton Island, Canada kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:09:25 -0300, "Ken Heaton"
wrote: Question below: The double nicopress fittings could support the load imposed in the tests only because they were clamping an eye that was passed around a 3" dia. pipe. Some of the load on the wire was passed to each nicopress fitting but most was carried by the friction inherent in the eye passing around the 3" pipe. Think of a rope around a bollard tied back to itself. Hmmm....you feel that the upper wire end was essentially locked to a pipe by friction. And so, I presume, you feel that the pipe was prevented from rotating, because if your explanation is correct, there would be a turning couple on the pipe. Actually, the turning couple on the pipe is counter balanced by an equal turning couple imposed by the dead end continuing down the other side back to the nicopress fitting. Either the pipe reacts some of the tension force in the wire or it doesn't. If it does, the pipe will rotate unless restrained, but the upper end needs a smaller restraining force at the nicopress to resist slip through. If the pipe does not resist the tension force, the force is passed to the nicopress, where it is resisted. But those are engineer's details. Beneath, you make a much better, clearer argument against Nicopress and thimbles - they are bulky, and when safety wired as needed, are unpleasant to work around. Actually, light aircraft use double Nicopress swages, but a preferred setup is to leave a slight loop before the second swage, in order to observe the onset of slipping failure in the first Nicopress. Others paint a mark at a joint. /// Brian W /// Are you suggesting instead of using swaged or other ends on wire terminations we use a couple of nicropress sleeves and a large enough thimble to allow the wire to turn back on itself without weakening it by bending it too severely? (This is how all the terminations are done on a Laser II for instance but in that case the wires are rather small.) Note that in the test they felt they needed a 3" diameter pipe so as to not bend the cable too abruptly. The 3 inch pipe issue is immaterial. Engineering usage has confirmed the value of thimbles of regular size as fit for the purpose. What then goes through the thimble to retain the end terminated thus? A pin large enough in diameter to prevent the thimble from collapsing under load? Or are there thimbles available, strong enough to retain their shape under load with a small pin passing through like the one in a turnbuckle fork? The turnbuckle fork would have to be wider than usual to accommodate the thimble. Wouldn't this make for a rather bulky termination? We are talking about rigging sized wire, not skinny little cables like the type used on a light aircraft's controls. I like the idea of swageless terminals. How much do they cost? I would choose them as stronger but as prettier and more functional for the purpose Brian W. |
Reusable rigging wire terminals besides Stalok, Norseman?
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:09:25 -0300, "Ken Heaton"
wrote: Question below: The double nicopress fittings could support the load imposed in the tests only because they were clamping an eye that was passed around a 3" dia. pipe. Some of the load on the wire was passed to each nicopress fitting but most was carried by the friction inherent in the eye passing around the 3" pipe. Think of a rope around a bollard tied back to itself. Hmmm....you feel that the upper wire end was essentially locked to a pipe by friction. And so, I presume, you feel that the pipe was prevented from rotating, because if your explanation is correct, there would be a turning couple on the pipe. Actually, the turning couple on the pipe is counter balanced by an equal turning couple imposed by the dead end continuing down the other side back to the nicopress fitting. Either the pipe reacts some of the tension force in the wire or it doesn't. If it does, the pipe will rotate unless restrained, but the upper end needs a smaller restraining force at the nicopress to resist slip through. If the pipe does not resist the tension force, the force is passed to the nicopress, where it is resisted. But those are engineer's details. Beneath, you make a much better, clearer argument against Nicopress and thimbles - they are bulky, and when safety wired as needed, are unpleasant to work around. Actually, light aircraft use double Nicopress swages, but a preferred setup is to leave a slight loop before the second swage, in order to observe the onset of slipping failure in the first Nicopress. Others paint a mark at a joint. /// Brian W /// Are you suggesting instead of using swaged or other ends on wire terminations we use a couple of nicropress sleeves and a large enough thimble to allow the wire to turn back on itself without weakening it by bending it too severely? (This is how all the terminations are done on a Laser II for instance but in that case the wires are rather small.) Note that in the test they felt they needed a 3" diameter pipe so as to not bend the cable too abruptly. The 3 inch pipe issue is immaterial. Engineering usage has confirmed the value of thimbles of regular size as fit for the purpose. What then goes through the thimble to retain the end terminated thus? A pin large enough in diameter to prevent the thimble from collapsing under load? Or are there thimbles available, strong enough to retain their shape under load with a small pin passing through like the one in a turnbuckle fork? The turnbuckle fork would have to be wider than usual to accommodate the thimble. Wouldn't this make for a rather bulky termination? We are talking about rigging sized wire, not skinny little cables like the type used on a light aircraft's controls. I like the idea of swageless terminals. How much do they cost? I would choose them as stronger but as prettier and more functional for the purpose Brian W. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com