Re: What is it? XCVIII

[Dave Balderstone]

Wrong. You automatically own copyright to any original work you produce unless you explicitly put that work into th epublic domain.

[Oleg Lego]

The Robert Bonomi entity posted thusly:

I stand corrected. Serves me right for taking the word of someone who told me that many years ago, without checking on it myself.

[George E. Cawthon]

True but proving it is yours is a little difficult. One way is to slightly crop any photo that is sent out. Only you will have the uncropped part that fits. Also, your case will be supported if you warn others that the photo is copyrighted. You do that by putting a copyright mark (c in a circle) then the year and your name.

All of which is useless, because as an individual you will not likely have the money to pursue a court case and obtain money damages.

[Barbara Bailey]

DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece" (in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to do such things?

Barb

[Brooks Moses]

It seems possible, I suppose, but it also seems remarkably simple for such a thing. In the simplistic shop class I took in college, our "masterpieces" had gear teeth and threads and suchlike on them, and I'd imagine a real machinist would have something at least as complex.

(They were really more for giving us experience with the various tools than for illustrating mastery, though.)

- Brooks

[Barbara Bailey]

The reason I asked is that my husband has mentioned that when he was apprenticing at a machinist's, he had to make a 1" cube to some incredibly fine tolerence before he was allowed to move on to the next step. So, not a final masterpiece really, but a 'proof of competence in this aspect' piece?

[DoN. Nichols]

According to Barbara Bailey :

As others have answered -- I don't think so. That is designed for use, not show, and the turned section is intended as a handle to get it to where it would be used.

IIRC, (though I have never been an apprentice), the cube had to be made by filing to fit a square hole -- and it had to be a precise fit though it in all orientations. I forget whether the apprentice's master would supply the square hole, or whether the apprentice had to make that as well.

This item looks to have been made slightly oversized, stamped on the end to mark it, hardened, and surface ground to final dimensions.

Is your husband still with us? If so, perhaps you could ask his opinion on the matter.

Enjoy, DoN.

[Barbara Bailey]

He is, but he has no clue on the mysterious whatzit. He didn't make it much past the 1" cube test--he's got poison hands, and this was long before latex gloves were readily available. Ah, well, it was a thought...

[DoN. Nichols]

According to Barbara Bailey :

[ ... ]

Aha! A "ruster". That is an awkward condition for a machinist.

There is also a special soap -- used by the Swiss watchmakers -- to neutralize the hands. It is probably too expensive for general machining work. Easier to give him a different job.

Thanks for the suggestions DoN.

[Robert Bonomi]

FALSE TO FACT. 'once upon a time', (in the U.S.) it was true that if you 'published' something *without* a copyright claim attached, that the item was then in the public domain. Since the U.S adopted the "Berne Convention", and modified it's copyright laws accordingly (in the 1980's), this is no longer the case.

Copyright protection attaches *automatically*, with no need to ever include any notice of such. If you don't _know_ the item is in the public domain -- i.e. you have a disclaimer from the author to that effect -- you are well-advised to proceed on the basis that there *is* copyright on the work involved.

[R.H.]

I was planning to use the micrometer at work today but it wasn't available, I should be able to use it in a day or two. There are no markings on it other than on the visible end. One more thing about it that I don't think that I mentioned before, it's made from a single piece of metal.

Rob

[Dan]

I swear by all Woodworking Gods, I will never, ever, post another article on this newsgroup which contains the words "copyright" or "public domain".

[Rich Grise]

...

I don't get it. )-;

Thanks, Rich

[Rich Grise]

It wouldn't make much of a hammer with that swivel. I'm guessing that the pointy part gets pounded into a post - i.e., you whack what looks like the hammerhead, poke the point in, and you have kind of a swivel, which maybe then you'd loop your fence wire over what looks like teeth, and pick a tooth based on what kind of mechanical advantage you want as you tighten the fence wire.

Well, that's my guess. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

[Rich Grise]

I see all three pictures on my server, although the first one is a little underexposed.

Cheers! Rich

[R.H.]

Turns out that it's not real close to 15/16" (.9375), I used two different micrometers, the digital one read .924 and the mechanical one .917. So it's closer to 59/64, which is .921875, I'm guessing that it's still most likely a gauge for checking some work.

Rob

[DoN. Nichols]

It is like us, trying to figure out what these puzzle tools do, when we don't even know what field they work in.

Would you expect to understand what a cow's tools do, when you don't even know what kind of work a cow might want to do with tools?

Enjoy, DoN.

[DoN. Nichols]

According to R.H. :

Did you check whether the dimensions were the same side to side as top to bottom? I would expect them to be so, so it would not matter which way you installed it.

Enjoy, DoN.

[Rich Grise]

I thought it might have something to do with the cow toolmaker's dexterity. ;-)

Thanks! Rich

[Rich Grise]

You need your micrometers calibrated.

If I needed machining work done, and I found out that this is as close to .001" as your shop can even _measure_, I'd RUN, not walk, to the nearest exit!

Good Luck! Rich