# Simple horizontal Mill Engine



## SBWHART (Mar 27, 2013)

I've drawn up a simple mill engine that can be made without the use of a mill, I've attached the plans so have fun

Stew 

View attachment Binder1.pdf


----------



## Gordon (Mar 27, 2013)

Thanks for the plans. It would help if all of these plans (not just this one) were available as DWG of DXF so that they could be converted to inch or metric. Just re figuring dimensions can get you in trouble because rounding up on one piece and rounding down on a mating piece can make for interference fits.


----------



## canadianhorsepower (Mar 27, 2013)

Gordon said:


> Thanks for the plans. It would help if all of these plans (not just this one) were available as DWG of DXF so that they could be converted to inch or metric. Just re figuring dimensions can get you in trouble because rounding up on one piece and rounding down on a mating piece can make for interference fits.


 
I don't understand why your writting this. Why don't you build it
in metric after all all digital tools are both metric and imperial


----------



## Philjoe5 (Mar 27, 2013)

Stew,
Thanks for posting the plans.  I don't know if I'll ever build it but as usual, whenever I look at someone's plans I see some good ideas for other models I may tackle.

Phil


----------



## Gordon (Mar 27, 2013)

canadianhorsepower said:


> I don't understand why your writting this. Why don't you build it
> in metric after all all digital tools are both metric and imperial



Because the majority of my tools are not digital. That and after working my whole life in inch sizes, my mind does not automatically think in metric sizes. If someone tells me something is 3/8" (.375) I immediately  can visualize that. If someone tells be that something is 15 mm I have to convert it to something I can visualize. 

As I said that is not a reflection on the designer or the plans. It is a reflection on the backward thinking USA.

Actually I frequently redraw plans in CAD even when the plans are in inch size because it makes me understand the plans better and I can make my mistakes  on paper instead of in metal.


----------



## GKNIPP (Mar 28, 2013)

Another issue with us folks that work with the imperial dimensioning system is the fact of stock sizes.  Our sheet stock and shafting is available in 1/8 =(.125), 3/16/= (.187), 1/4= (.250), 3/8= (.375) etc...  When a drawing is provided in meteric dimensions it will specify  5mm=(.197), 6mm=(.236), 7mm=(.276), 8mm=(.315) and so on.     As you can see there is a definite difference so when converting plans you need to take this into consideration as well and accomodate in other areas on the plan such as center distances, bolt hole positioning etc...  One is basically redesigning and laying out the plan to make sure everything fits and works together in harmony.  I am presently doing this with a set of plans sent to me for the BONZER hit-n-miss engine from Australia ( Thread on this engine found in the "Finished Projects" section of HMEM).  Initially, it looked rather simple and for an individual part by itself it is, however, when you need to insure proper mating fits, stroke lengths, centers, etc... between these individual parts the job becomes more involved and time consuming.  Now, please understand I must do this the old fashioned way with T-square, compass, pencil, eraser and long hand trig as I do not own a CAD program.     I believe the same holds true when you need to convert an imperial edrawing to metric.  

Greg


----------



## rhitee93 (Mar 28, 2013)

Hey, that is a nice looking engine.  Fairly simple, as you say, but it has a lot of style.  Thanks for the plans


----------



## Wagon173 (Mar 28, 2013)

Maybe its just my living in metric countries for a quarter or so of my life, but I'm comfortable using either system.  I prefer inches, but metric makes the math a lot more tolerable.  The only thing that grinds my gears is popping the hood of a new car or truck that has a combination of both systems!  I'd rather make out with the belt sander....


----------



## geoff p (Mar 28, 2013)

An observation from abroad: since many of you seem to machine every  component All Over so as to get a good surface for your "bling factor",  does it really matter what size the material was originally?  Just count  yourselves lucky to be able to buy "stock" sizes of any sort.

How  would you cope with Chinese dimensions?  I have a perfectly valid  12-inch rule, bought in Taiwan, which has 12 Inches on one edge of one  face and 10 "Chinese inches" (whatever they call 'em) covering (nearly)  the same span on the other edge of the same face.  Luckily, the other  face has conventional Metric markings.  But imagine, if you will, the  difficulty for a Chinaman trying to buy a digital caliper that can swap  between mm and "Chinese inch" and Imperial Inch.

Meantime, a big  thank-you to Stew for his plans - I notice they don't dimension to silly  decimal-fractions of a gnat's cock.  He assumes, quite rightly, that  the skill comes from the builder/maker/machinist, to both judge where  open-tolerance is acceptable and where sensible limits would be a  good-idea-if-only-I-can-do-it.

Geoff


----------



## geoff p (Mar 28, 2013)

Playing the Devil's advocate a bit - Stew's drawing is actually dimensionless!  With the exception of threads, you could quite happily build it using the same numbers in millimetres, inches, or "Chinese inches" (though the later would be quite big at 488mm bore!)

Since some of you prefer fractional-inch "stuff", you could simply apply a scale-factor so the 16 (inch) bore became 2inch and all the 3-dimensions become 3/8 etc.

Many of you CAD fans would see that, quite wrongly, as .375, implying a tolerance of +/- .002 to a bit of stuff that originally had open-tolerance of +/- 1/64

Many (most?) of the world's great model-makers didn't have CAD to represent every dimension to N-decimal-places.  They only applied tight tolerances to parts that mattered, leaving the rest as fractions.  Funnily enough, most of the early engine-makers did likewise, reserving critical machining for those parts where a bastard-file just wouldn't do.

Geoff


----------



## SBWHART (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanks for your interest guys

Playing the Devil's advocate a bit - Stew's drawing is actually dimensionless!  With the exception of threads, you could quite happily build it using the same numbers in millimetres, inches, or "Chinese inches" (though the later would be quite big at 488mm bore!)

Its drawn up in mm but most sizes will convert to inch ie 6mm use 1/4" etc etc the idea is to use standard stock sizes to reduce the amount of maching I've also tried to use low cost material keeping away from brass and phos bronze as much as I can

You can scale it to any size you want, as the man said its you're engine you can make it how you want.

Just have fun playing arround with it and remember if any one makes one we want to see some pictures

Stew


----------



## nowramfg (Mar 28, 2013)

I do not want to upset anyone but...
Does this work? 

View attachment Horizontal Mill Engine.zip


----------



## don-tucker (Mar 28, 2013)

I have got to put my three pence worth in here,I have allways maintained,rightly or wrongly that in model engineering that as long as the two parts fit the actual size within a few thou is neither here or there,for instance if an engine bore is drawn at 5/8" does it make any difference if its .630" or .620" ?. There Ive had my say so i'm happy now
Don


----------



## Gordon (Mar 28, 2013)

nowramfg said:


> I do not want to upset anyone but...
> Does this work?



I can bring it up in my CAD but the scale is slightly off. I would assume that it is possible to rescale it.

How did you get from PDF to DXF?


----------



## SBWHART (Mar 28, 2013)

nowramfg said:


> I do not want to upset anyone but...
> Does this work?


 

Yes it works Pat 

Stew


----------



## nowramfg (Mar 28, 2013)

In my work, I have a pdf to .dxf converter, it works on pdf's that were "printed" from a dxf. It will not convert it if it is a scan.
Glad it was of some help


----------



## Swifty (Mar 28, 2013)

When going from metric to imperial or from imperial to metric, the sizes generally don't matter as long as everything that is relevant is changed also. For example, 1/4" or 6mm shaft dia. So long as any holes that the shaft go in are made to suit. Model makers with a few engines under their belt should realise what is important or not regarding fits.

Paul.


----------



## don-tucker (Mar 28, 2013)

That's what I was trying to say Paul 
Don


----------



## Tin Falcon (Mar 29, 2013)

I downloaded the plans. 
Cant promise I will build it. 
Tin


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Mar 29, 2013)

Nice work Stew.-----Brian


----------



## geoff p (Mar 29, 2013)

This whole conversion topic reminds me of when I was a draughtsman, at the time when England (UK) was "going metric".  We quite easily adopted metric dimensions for the most part, using whole-numbers where we could, and decimals where it mattered.

The European standard for pipe-threads was chosen to be British Standard Pipe (BSP) so some silly arses started putting 12.7 BSP on their drawings, where what was required was 1/2 inch BSP.

Sorry, Stew, I didn't mean my "Devil's Advocate" post as a criticism, rather the opposite.  I ~like~ your drawings and I ~like~ your simple dimensioning, and I ~like~ its scalability.  I know it is designed in mm but I just couldn't resist a dig those whose preferred numbering system is non-metric.

To echo Brian,  Nice work stew.

Geoff


----------



## gus (Mar 29, 2013)

SBWHART said:


> I've drawn up a simple mill engine that can be made without the use of a mill, I've attached the plans so have fun
> 
> Stew



Hi Stew,

Thanks for the drawing. This engine will be on my build list.Prefer to build steam engines as they are very forgiving and easy to build as compared to IC engines.:wall::wall::wall:
Built the Popcorn engine in 2011. Your engine will be another challenge.



Gus Teng,

Singapore now hot n humid :fan::fan::fan:


----------



## SBWHART (Mar 30, 2013)

geoff p said:


> Sorry, Stew, I didn't mean my "Devil's Advocate" post as a criticism, rather the opposite.  I ~like~ your drawings and I ~like~ your simple dimensioning, and I ~like~ its scalability.  I know it is designed in mm but I just couldn't resist a dig those whose preferred numbering system is non-metric.
> 
> To echo Brian,  Nice work stew.
> 
> Geoff


 
Thanks Geoff: no need for an apology it always amuses me when things go off on a tangent, in an interesting debate. *discussion*


 I'm planning to draw up a series of simple engines based around common standard parts, I've got a vertical 1/2 drawn, and a grasshopper sketched out, don't know when i'll get them finished it's one of those i pick up when I feal like it.

Hi Gus  Like the popcorn engine Thm:

Stew


----------



## seagar (Mar 30, 2013)

Why can't some people just be grateful for Stews generosity giving us his plan instead of throwing up ridiculous obstacles.
I just want to say thank you Stew for your generous contribution to this great hobby.

Best wishes,Ian (seagar)


----------



## Gordon (Mar 30, 2013)

I don't think that anyone is criticizing the drawing or the design. We are all thankful for folks who are willing to share their design. The discussion is primarily about two different measuring systems, one of which is logical and the other which is stupid but it is the system we in the US are forced to live with.  What is amazing is that a change to the metric system was proposed back in the early industrial revolution but was rejected because it was too expensive to change. Soon the US is going to be forced to change.


----------



## Tin Falcon (Mar 30, 2013)

I see no harm done just a little friendly jesting. 

I personally  prefer imperial measurements. but that's OK . lets not turn this thread into a metric vs imperial debate. that subject has been hashed over many times on this and other forums. 
and I did see many thank yous out there including the one I posted.  
Tin


----------



## johnmcc69 (Mar 30, 2013)

Stew, nice design & great job on the drawings. Thanks very much for sharing them. I know the time it takes to put a set of drawings like this together & your efforts are very much appreciated.

Units of measure? Doesn't matter. A good machinist/model maker will just take the plans & run with it.

John


----------



## GKNIPP (Mar 30, 2013)

Just let me say that I am truley grateful for Stews contribution and hard work.  It is a lovely little engine and I have downloaded the plans myself.  The comments I made were merely my experiences and for disscussion purposes only.    i apologize if anything I posted has done anything different. 

Thanks a million Stew!!!

Greg


----------



## Shopguy (Mar 30, 2013)

Thanks Stewart.
 Will make an excellent project.
EJ


----------



## gus (Mar 31, 2013)

SBWHART said:


> I've drawn up a simple mill engine that can be made without the use of a mill, I've attached the plans so have fun
> 
> Stew



Hi Stew,

The more I view the print,the more I want to build it. Looks like will email my local supplier for cut to size bar stock.

Thanks for the prints. Now in HongKong.

Nice and cooler here but wee bitty rain.

Gus Teng


----------



## Twizseven (Apr 1, 2013)

Stewart,

Like the plans for this engine, have printed it out and spent the last hour or so perusing it to fully understand it.  Possibly me being dim but just struggling to understand couple of bits on drawing CP1.  All the rest looks great and I can follow it without any problem.  The front cover Part 3 looks as though Part 5 (Valve stem guide) has the piston rod going through it.  The valve chest is shown with Part 6 (Valve rod guide) and this is shown in front view of Cylinder assembly, but cross section shows what looks like Part 7 (Valve guide stuffing box) and part 5 (valve stem guide).  Also querying the function of the four M2 threaded holes shown  in plan view of Part2 (valve chest) but not shown in the sectional views.  The exhause ports also do not appear to be shown in the vertical cross section of the valve chest.

I fully appreciate the time you have spent drawing these places and putting them in public domain.  I also have the plans for yourPopcorn engine which I would like to build one day.

Regards,

Colin


----------



## gus (Apr 2, 2013)

Tin Falcon said:


> I see no harm done just a little friendly jesting.
> 
> I personally  prefer imperial measurements. but that's OK . lets not turn this thread into a metric vs imperial debate. that subject has been hashed over many times on this and other forums.
> and I did see many thank yous out there including the one I posted.
> Tin



Hi Tin.

Grow up and grow old with Imperial Units. Would love to stay with same.Took me a long time to switch over to "metric" reluctantly.It happened when a set of prints fell into my lap and it was in metric. Did convert all units to inches but gave up when I went shopping locally for reamers and fasteners.Imperial sizes were hard to buy.Most fastener shops had gone metric.As for BSW BSF BA NC NF NS fasteners became fossil. HAlf way into the project,found metric to be a tame animal. When Singapore went metric , it helped for poor guys like Gus to go metric. Now reverting to Imperial would be tough for Gus though I still estimate/visualise in inches/feet/miles/lbs/tons/gallons etc.

Now in Home Machinist Paradise-------HongKong.
Hongkong is paradise shopping for tools. Found shops selling Taiwanese Mini Dividing Heads,UK endmills/reamers etc. The machineshops here believe in paying more for quality stuffs. Chinese drills n end mills are not preferred. Japanese,USA,UK end mills are preferred due to longer service life. Bought some spotting drills.Did see some Chinese brazed carbide cutters.
Trying very hard not to buy everything.

Gus Teng


----------



## SBWHART (Apr 3, 2013)

Hi Colin

Thanks for you're interest the drawings have not been tested I'e I've not made the engine yet, so there is a distinc posibility for errors.

To answer you ?

Q1:- The front cover Part 3 looks as though Part 5 (Valve stem guide) has the piston rod going through it.

A1:- Looks like I've labeled part 5 wrong it should be Piston Rod Guide

Q2:- The valve chest is shown with Part 6 (Valve rod guide) and this is shown in front view of Cylinder assembly, but cross section shows what looks like Part 7 (Valve guide stuffing box) and part 5 (valve stem guide).  

A2:- There are two parts to the valve rod closure Part 7 that goes into the valve chest you inset the grafite gland packing into this, and Part 6 Valve rod Guide assembles into it compressing the packing to make the seal.

Q3:- Also querying the function of the four M2 threaded holes shown  in plan view of Part2 (valve chest) but not shown in the sectional views.  

A3:- This is down to my bad design, to be honest I'm unsure on the best way to make the air connection, as drawn I was thinking of just having a plane flange bolted to the chest with the four M2 studs, but I think this may not be the best way, I think it would be better to utilise the four adjasent 2mm holes for the valve chest studs for this purpose.

Q4:- The exhause ports also do not appear to be shown in the vertical cross section of the valve chest.

A4:- The exhaust ports point to the right in the bottom section drawing at 20mm centres, the inlets are at 12mm centres pointing away.

Hope this helps and thanks for asking the ? it realy helps when people give feed back

Hi Gus

I went through the UK change over from imperial to metric including the currency change and to be honest I think the meteric system is far better, but I find I can swap from one to the other with no problem.

As for Hong Cong tooling we visited their a few years ago, and all the guides wanted to show us was jewelry and camera shops, they looked at me as if i was daft when i asked about tooling, and as I was the only tool buff in the party I was just draged along with the rest. But I have found a couple of on line sites based in Hing Cong that supply to the UK good stuff at a real good prices.

Stew


----------



## Twizseven (Apr 3, 2013)

Stewart,

Many thanks for clarifying my questions. Makes sense now.

Regards,

Colin


----------



## kjk (Apr 3, 2013)

Previously posted elsewhere.


----------



## mrspoom (Apr 3, 2013)

I think someone thinks imperial is superior and anything not in mm is inferior; the air must be getting stuffy with the head you know where.


----------



## gus (Apr 3, 2013)

SBWHART said:


> Hi Colin
> 
> Thanks for you're interest the drawings have not been tested I'e I've not made the engine yet, so there is a distinc posibility for errors.
> 
> ...



Hi Stew,
Did bump into some tourists shopping for tools.Milwauke Power Tools are cheaper here as they have a plant in China.Makita too. Their China Brand Maktec is cheap n good.Bought some Swedish HSS bits and some UK slitting saws.

Heading home now.

Gus Teng.
Please mail me the HK websites to look at.


----------



## SBWHART (Apr 4, 2013)

Gus Teng.
Please mail me the HK websites to look at.

This is the main one http://store02.prostores.com/servlet/ctctools/StoreFront

Stew


----------

