| |
In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've uploaded the power point presentation that I gave at BrickFest 2003.
>
> I is on this page:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=46353
>
> The file is named pneumatics_magic.ppt.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Kevin
Cool! Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed attending your presentation, although I
admit I didn't fully understand all of it right then. I think some studying of
the AND, OR, and the other type of OR (I forget what it's called- you can have
one or the other, but NOT both) would help me.
Your pneumatics creations were awesome. It was great to see them and meet their
creator in person! I had a blast and look forward to next time.
-TJ
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've uploaded the power point presentation that I gave at BrickFest 2003.
Great, hope more will follow your example!
> I is on this page:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=46353
>
> The file is named pneumatics_magic.ppt.
Note: File size is close to 30 MB!
Most of it went above my head, it started out really basic but had a somewhat
steep attack of things. Looks like it's tuned for computer programmers/designers
that know of gates who wants to start using LEGO penumatics instead?
I did learn things from it though, despite the fact I'm not really interested in
pneumatic logic :)
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
<http://www.lotek.nu>
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've uploaded the power point presentation that I gave at BrickFest 2003.
>
> Great, hope more will follow your example!
>
> > I is on this page:
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=46353
> >
> > The file is named pneumatics_magic.ppt.
>
> Note: File size is close to 30 MB!
Yes it is. It is all those pictures.
>
> Most of it went above my head, it started out really basic but had a somewhat
> steep attack of things. Looks like it's tuned for computer programmers/designers
> that know of gates who wants to start using LEGO penumatics instead?
In the presentation, I talked about pneumatic pistons as actuators for things
like back hoes, simulating the hyraulics that are often used in heavy machinery.
I didn't spend time there because I think that their use there is self
explanatory.
My interest in pneumatics is in making complex autonomous pneumatic circuits,
that sequence through a repeating pattern to achieve some goal (like walking or
crawling like my inchworm.) To do this, you have to control pistons with
switches that control pistons with switches..... The moment you try this, you
are doing boolean logic whether you know it or not.
I also have an interest in pneumatic computing as you noticed.
As it was, I didn't have enough time for the material that was presented.
>
> I did learn things from it though, despite the fact I'm not really interested in
> pneumatic logic :)
I'm hoping that this winter I'll have time to create a pneumatics web page that
describes educates on all things that are LEGO pneumatic.
I'm very interested in ways to decrease the slope for the web page.... Any
input here would be greatly appreciated.
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've uploaded the power point presentation that I gave at BrickFest 2003.
>
> I is on this page:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=46353
>
> The file is named pneumatics_magic.ppt.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Kevin
Well, can't you take your own pictures off the 8455... ;-)
Kim Andersen
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Kim Andersen wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've uploaded the power point presentation that I gave at BrickFest 2003.
> >
> > I is on this page:
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=46353
> >
> > The file is named pneumatics_magic.ppt.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > Kevin
>
> Well, can't you take your own pictures off the 8455... ;-)
Well..... I didn't have the heart to cut up the hoses......
;^)
>
> Kim Andersen
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Thomas Avery wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've uploaded the power point presentation that I gave at BrickFest 2003.
> >
> > I is on this page:
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=46353
> >
> > The file is named pneumatics_magic.ppt.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > Kevin
>
> Cool! Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed attending your presentation, although I
> admit I didn't fully understand all of it right then. I think some studying of
> the AND, OR, and the other type of OR (I forget what it's called- you can have
> one or the other, but NOT both) would help me.
That'd be XOR ;)
And thanks Kevin for the PPT file, it's great!
Although I do have one little query - on page 4, you say the cylinders "Expand
faster than they contract" - is this correct? I thought it would be the other
way round - they contract faster but with less force?
Anyway thanks for all your diagrams & explanations - has made it much
clearer..... I think ;)
ROSCO
|
|
| |
Ross Crawford's utterance expressed in news:HJovou.1wF6@lugnet.com:
> And thanks Kevin for the PPT file, it's great!
Definately - with more presentations like this - a whole
library of good knowledge can be made :)
> Although I do have one little query - on page 4, you say the cylinders
> "Expand faster than they contract" - is this correct? I thought it
> would be the other way round - they contract faster but with less
> force?
you're right.. the volume to fill with air is smaller in the shaft-end
hence it moves faster inwards.. but that is without load.. I believe
that the force generated with LEGO-pneumatic is much greater in con-
traction than it is in expansion. But that is to be tested :)
Play on...
--
| lars gjerløw jørgensen | lgj[at]jyde[dot]dk |
| N55 43.184 E12 32.405 | www.lgj.dk | oz2lgj |
Mrs. Black: "Filth! Scum! By-products of dirt and vileness!
Half-breeds, mutants, freaks, begone from this place! How
dare you befoul the house of my fathers --"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kim Andersen wrote:
> > In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > I've uploaded the power point presentation that I gave at BrickFest 2003.
> > >
> > > I is on this page:
> > >
> > > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=46353
> > >
> > > The file is named pneumatics_magic.ppt.
> > >
> > > Enjoy!
> > >
> > > Kevin
> >
> > Well, can't you take your own pictures off the 8455... ;-)
>
> Well..... I didn't have the heart to cut up the hoses......
>
> ;^)
>
> >
> > Kim Andersen
>
> Kevin
That's why i have two... ;-)
Kim Andersen
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Cool! Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed attending your presentation, although I
> > admit I didn't fully understand all of it right then. I think some studying of
> > the AND, OR, and the other type of OR (I forget what it's called- you can have
> > one or the other, but NOT both) would help me.
>
> That'd be XOR ;)
>
> And thanks Kevin for the PPT file, it's great!
>
> Although I do have one little query - on page 4, you say the cylinders "Expand
> faster than they contract" - is this correct? I thought it would be the other
> way round - they contract faster but with less force?
>
> Anyway thanks for all your diagrams & explanations - has made it much
> clearer..... I think ;)
>
>
> ROSCO
Rosco,
The expanding and contracting behavior is described by Pascal's law that says
that the force exerted by a piston is the pressure (pounds per square inch)
times the surface area (square inches). The area in this case is the area of the
face of the piston head. The area of the face of the expand side of the piston
head is larger than the contract face of the piston head because the shaft that
attaches to that face.
Less area, less force,,,,,
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > >
> > > Cool! Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed attending your presentation, although I
> > > admit I didn't fully understand all of it right then. I think some studying of
> > > the AND, OR, and the other type of OR (I forget what it's called- you can have
> > > one or the other, but NOT both) would help me.
> >
> > That'd be XOR ;)
> >
> > And thanks Kevin for the PPT file, it's great!
> >
> > Although I do have one little query - on page 4, you say the cylinders "Expand
> > faster than they contract" - is this correct? I thought it would be the other
> > way round - they contract faster but with less force?
> >
> > Anyway thanks for all your diagrams & explanations - has made it much
> > clearer..... I think ;)
> >
> >
> > ROSCO
>
> Rosco,
>
> The expanding and contracting behavior is described by Pascal's law that says
> that the force exerted by a piston is the pressure (pounds per square inch)
> times the surface area (square inches). The area in this case is the area of the
> face of the piston head. The area of the face of the expand side of the piston
> head is larger than the contract face of the piston head because the shaft that
> attaches to that face.
>
> Less area, less force,,,,,
Ummmm yep, thats what I meant - the contract side is smaller so less force, but
wouldn't that also mean it contracts faster because it needs less air? Just like
the small cylinders expand/contract much faster than the big ones because of the
much smaller area?
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Less area, less force,,,,,
>
> Ummmm yep, thats what I meant - the contract side is smaller so less force, but
> wouldn't that also mean it contracts faster because it needs less air? Just like
> the small cylinders expand/contract much faster than the big ones because of the
> much smaller area?
I think that the smaller pistons expand/contract faster because they have much
less friction, combined with the fact that they have much smaller cavities. The
old large single acting pistons expand/contract much faster than the new large
double acting pistons because they have much less friction.
>
> ROSCO
Kevin
|
|
| |
Kevin L. Clague's utterance expressed in news:HJsMzo.4n3@lugnet.com:
> In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Less area, less force,,,,,
> >
> > Ummmm yep, thats what I meant - the contract side is smaller so less
> > force, but wouldn't that also mean it contracts faster because it
> > needs less air? Just like the small cylinders expand/contract much
> > faster than the big ones because of the much smaller area?
>
> I think that the smaller pistons expand/contract faster because they
> have much less friction, combined with the fact that they have much
> smaller cavities. The old large single acting pistons expand/contract
> much faster than the new large double acting pistons because they have
> much less friction.
Friction is an important factor. But just as important is the fact
that if I want to fill a certain volume with air, it takes less
time if the volume is smaller - therefore the pistons contract
faster because of the shaft that takes up volume in that end. The
pumps does deliver the same amount of air to all types of cylinders.
This has to be tested with a stopwatch... :)
Play on..
--
| lars gjerløw jørgensen | lgj[at]jyde[dot]dk |
| N55 43.184 E12 32.405 | www.lgj.dk | oz2lgj |
Mrs. Black: "Filth! Scum! By-products of dirt and vileness!
Half-breeds, mutants, freaks, begone from this place! How
dare you befoul the house of my fathers --"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Lars Gjerløw Jørgensen wrote:
> Kevin L. Clague's utterance expressed in news:HJsMzo.4n3@lugnet.com:
>
> > In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Less area, less force,,,,,
> > >
> > > Ummmm yep, thats what I meant - the contract side is smaller so less
> > > force, but wouldn't that also mean it contracts faster because it
> > > needs less air? Just like the small cylinders expand/contract much
> > > faster than the big ones because of the much smaller area?
> >
> > I think that the smaller pistons expand/contract faster because they
> > have much less friction, combined with the fact that they have much
> > smaller cavities. The old large single acting pistons expand/contract
> > much faster than the new large double acting pistons because they have
> > much less friction.
>
> Friction is an important factor. But just as important is the fact
> that if I want to fill a certain volume with air, it takes less
> time if the volume is smaller - therefore the pistons contract
> faster because of the shaft that takes up volume in that end. The
> pumps does deliver the same amount of air to all types of cylinders.
>
> This has to be tested with a stopwatch... :)
Yes. I've already acknowledged that they contract faster because of the smaller
volume in a no load situation.
>
> Play on..
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
>
> Yes. I've already acknowledged that they contract faster because of the smaller
> volume in a no load situation.
Which was the basis of my original suggestion, that the smaller volume on the
"contract" side of pistons (both large and small) would imply that they contract
slightly faster than they expand, but with slightly less force?
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> >
> > Yes. I've already acknowledged that they contract faster because of the smaller
> > volume in a no load situation.
>
> Which was the basis of my original suggestion, that the smaller volume on the
> "contract" side of pistons (both large and small) would imply that they contract
> slightly faster than they expand, but with slightly less force?
Yes. The contract face of the piston has less area than the expand face.
>
> ROSCO
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > Which was the basis of my original suggestion, that the smaller volume on the
> > "contract" side of pistons (both large and small) would imply that they contract
> > slightly faster than they expand, but with slightly less force?
>
> Yes. The contract face of the piston has less area than the expand face.
Whew! Glad we got that worked out! But that contradicts what you say in the PPT
presentation, as I pointed out originally!
http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=11127
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > > Which was the basis of my original suggestion, that the smaller volume on the
> > > "contract" side of pistons (both large and small) would imply that they contract
> > > slightly faster than they expand, but with slightly less force?
> >
> > Yes. The contract face of the piston has less area than the expand face.
>
> Whew! Glad we got that worked out! But that contradicts what you say in the PPT
> presentation, as I pointed out originally!
> http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=11127
Live and learn! I thank all who patiently explained my error. I'll fix and
update. That is what I love about LEGO, learning and discovery. I'm a computer
engineer, not a physicist, and the things I make are highly physical. In this
case, incomplete comprehension of the theory got in the way of practical
understanding.
Not to start this all over, but because the contract face has less area, under
*heavy* load conditions, *I think* that expansion can be faster than contraction
because of the minor extra force the expand face provides.
I'll take a hint, get a stopwatch, and check out my hypothesis......
>
> ROSCO
Kevin
|
|
| |
Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've uploaded the power point presentation that I gave at BrickFest 2003.
>
> I is on this page:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=46353
>
> The file is named pneumatics_magic.ppt.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Kevin
Hey Kevin! Welcome back.
My own vanity had me curious to see how you would cover the 2 cylinder
full adder I came up with, or how you would describe the procedure I use
for hooking up the switches in "reverse", but I didn't see anything
about either of them in the powerpoint slides. I'm curious, was there
parts of your presentation that weren't in the powerpoint file?
As an aside, I find it interesting to think about that if I had actually
*owned* a fair amount of pneumatics before I started trying to design
those things, it's entirely possible that I may not have ever used a
backwards switch concept because no models (afaik) use that idea, and by
building such models, I could have been subconsciously "programmed" to
not try that approach. Who knew that ignorance could sometimes be the
cause of something apparently innovative? :)
>> Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
> >
> > Whew! Glad we got that worked out! But that contradicts what you say in the PPT
> > presentation, as I pointed out originally!
> > http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=11127
>
> Live and learn! I thank all who patiently explained my error.
Happy to play my part!
> I'll fix and
> update. That is what I love about LEGO, learning and discovery. I'm a computer
> engineer, not a physicist, and the things I make are highly physical. In this
> case, incomplete comprehension of the theory got in the way of practical
> understanding.
LOL! Well I'm sure I've heard of Pascal's Law, but didn't remeber the theory, it
was just a "gut feeling" that it didn't seem right!
> Not to start this all over, but because the contract face has less area, under
> *heavy* load conditions, *I think* that expansion can be faster than contraction
> because of the minor extra force the expand face provides.
I've also been a bit worried about putting a big load on the contract stroke,
because of the possibility of leakage around the connecting rod. Although the
LEGO pistons seem to be *very* well sealed [1], it always struck me as a weak
point...
ROSCO
[1] Which no doubt increases the friction. I guess life is full of compromise...
I think LEGO probably compromised in the right direction in this case - you can
always build a bigger compressor ;)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've uploaded the power point presentation that I gave at BrickFest 2003.
> >
> > I is on this page:
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=46353
> >
> > The file is named pneumatics_magic.ppt.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > Kevin
>
> Hey Kevin! Welcome back.
>
> My own vanity had me curious to see how you would cover the 2 cylinder
> full adder I came up with, or how you would describe the procedure I use
> for hooking up the switches in "reverse", but I didn't see anything
> about either of them in the powerpoint slides. I'm curious, was there
> parts of your presentation that weren't in the powerpoint file?
Hi Mark,
I didn't present your adder because it is yours to present.
>
> As an aside, I find it interesting to think about that if I had actually
> *owned* a fair amount of pneumatics before I started trying to design
> those things, it's entirely possible that I may not have ever used a
> backwards switch concept because no models (afaik) use that idea, and by
> building such models, I could have been subconsciously "programmed" to
> not try that approach. Who knew that ignorance could sometimes be the
> cause of something apparently innovative? :)
I've found out that using the switches the way you do is how they were originaly
used with the old lego pneumatics.
>
> > > Mark
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > >
> > > Whew! Glad we got that worked out! But that contradicts what you say in the PPT
> > > presentation, as I pointed out originally!
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=11127
> >
> > Live and learn! I thank all who patiently explained my error.
>
> Happy to play my part!
>
> > I'll fix and
> > update. That is what I love about LEGO, learning and discovery. I'm a computer
> > engineer, not a physicist, and the things I make are highly physical. In this
> > case, incomplete comprehension of the theory got in the way of practical
> > understanding.
>
> LOL! Well I'm sure I've heard of Pascal's Law, but didn't remeber the theory, it
> was just a "gut feeling" that it didn't seem right!
>
> > Not to start this all over, but because the contract face has less area, under
> > *heavy* load conditions, *I think* that expansion can be faster than contraction
> > because of the minor extra force the expand face provides.
>
> I've also been a bit worried about putting a big load on the contract stroke,
> because of the possibility of leakage around the connecting rod. Although the
> LEGO pistons seem to be *very* well sealed [1], it always struck me as a weak
> point...
The biggest issue when fully expanded is leverage to the side which can lead to
leakage. I've experienced it once in a while.
Kevin
>
> ROSCO
>
> [1] Which no doubt increases the friction. I guess life is full of compromise...
> I think LEGO probably compromised in the right direction in this case - you can
> always build a bigger compressor ;)
|
|
| |
"Kevin L. Clague" <kevin_clague@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> The biggest issue when fully expanded is leverage to the side which can • lead to
> leakage. I've experienced it once in a while.
Interesting, I've noticed this happens quite a lot when joing two large
cylinders back to back to make a larger double cylinder, and some cylinders
seem more prone to it than others. Working the cylinders a few cycles
sometimes seems to reduce it a bit, but not always. It is a rather annoying
problem.
Jennifer
|
|
| |
Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I didn't present your adder because it is yours to present.
Ah... well given the unlikelihood that I'd ever be a lecturer at a
future brickfest, I hadn't even considered that as a possibility. Not
that I was expecting you to take credit for the idea, but more like
"another guy I was chatting with on lugnet also really got into the idea
of pneumatic computing, and came up with this idea" sorta thing.
I'm not exactly famous, so my name wouldn't mean anything to anyone
anyways. :)
>> Mark
|
|
| |
"Jennifer Clark" <jen@vulture.dmem.strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Kevin L. Clague" <kevin_clague@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > The biggest issue when fully expanded is leverage to the side which can • lead to
> > leakage. I've experienced it once in a while.
>
> Interesting, I've noticed this happens quite a lot when joing two large
> cylinders back to back to make a larger double cylinder, and some cylinders
> seem more prone to it than others. Working the cylinders a few cycles
> sometimes seems to reduce it a bit, but not always. It is a rather annoying
> problem.
I sucked grease - by manually pulling the plunger with a dab of grease
on the bottom air input - into my cylinders and they move more
consistently and don't leak pressure. I used ceramic grease of the
type you get for RC car gearboxes. They aren't much easier to move,
but they do move more smoothly and I've not had the problem with
pressure leakage. I can't say I put much lateral stress on them
though.
The same grease on a large turntable worked as well - perhaps harder
to turn but no sticking at all, making precise movements easier.
Tim
|
|
| |
> I sucked grease - by manually pulling the plunger with a dab of grease
> on the bottom air input - into my cylinders and they move more
> consistently and don't leak pressure. I used ceramic grease of the
> type you get for RC car gearboxes. They aren't much easier to move,
> but they do move more smoothly and I've not had the problem with
> pressure leakage. I can't say I put much lateral stress on them
> though.
Would not the grease eventually find it's way out into the hoses and make the
hose connection a bad one because of the slippery grease?
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
<http://www.lotek.nu>
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
"Tobbe Arnesson" <StPnAtM@lotek.nu> wrote:
> > I sucked grease - by manually pulling the plunger with a dab of grease
> > on the bottom air input - into my cylinders and they move more
> > consistently and don't leak pressure. I used ceramic grease of the
> > type you get for RC car gearboxes. They aren't much easier to move,
> > but they do move more smoothly and I've not had the problem with
> > pressure leakage. I can't say I put much lateral stress on them
> > though.
>
> Would not the grease eventually find it's way out into the hoses and make the
> hose connection a bad one because of the slippery grease?
I've not encountered grease coming back out. It takes a really good
tug to suck it in there and you don't get the same level of airflow
when in normal use. The grease is fairly thick. After a bit of initial
vigorous pumping by hand to spread the grease any excess is ejected
and I've not seen any more come out. I've done it to the clear
cylinders and a little stays top and bottom with a little smeared over
the inside.
Tim
|
|
| |
"Tim Auton" <tim.lugnet@uton.org> wrote in message
>
> I've not encountered grease coming back out. It takes a really good
> tug to suck it in there and you don't get the same level of airflow
> when in normal use. The grease is fairly thick. After a bit of initial
> vigorous pumping by hand to spread the grease any excess is ejected
> and I've not seen any more come out. I've done it to the clear
> cylinders and a little stays top and bottom with a little smeared over
> the inside.
I've just tried this and it does make a significant improvement, especially
on older cylinders. With two old cylinders connected up in parallel, I found
that the treated one would extend and retract before the untreated one, and
when both were treated both became more or less equal again. I don't suppose
there is any chance of damage to the seals from this grease?
In my own tests I can confirm that it also makes an improvement to the
technic turntables.
Jennifer
|
|
| |
"Jennifer Clark" <jen@vulture.dmem.strath.ac.uk> wrote:
[ceramic grease in pneumatic cylinders]
> I've just tried this and it does make a significant improvement, especially
> on older cylinders. With two old cylinders connected up in parallel, I found
> that the treated one would extend and retract before the untreated one, and
> when both were treated both became more or less equal again. I don't suppose
> there is any chance of damage to the seals from this grease?
I hope there's no chance of damage :) I went for ceramic grease over
organic as I understand it's fairly inert. I'm no chemist though and I
don't even know what the seals are made from.
A check of my cylinders (which had this treatment about 18 months ago)
shows they are still holding pressure and in the transparent ones I
can't see any visible degradation of the seals. So far, so good.
Tim
|
|
| |
"Tim Auton" <tim.lugnet@uton.org> wrote in message
>
> I hope there's no chance of damage :) I went for ceramic grease over
> organic as I understand it's fairly inert. I'm no chemist though and I
> don't even know what the seals are made from.
It was ceramic grease I used as well, from Tamiya. It's still working today
:-)
> A check of my cylinders (which had this treatment about 18 months ago)
> shows they are still holding pressure and in the transparent ones I
> can't see any visible degradation of the seals. So far, so good.
Excellent!
Jennifer
|
|
|
