My GW 116

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Tue. May. 16, 2017 2:42 pm

Sunny Boy wrote:
philthy wrote:Thats interesting.... Maybe there were different thickness for the different types? DJ says hes pretty sure his is less than 16 gauge though. Can you elaborate a little more on old vs new gauge measurements?

Back when these stoves were being made there was still quite a bit of each supplier/manufacture using their own, or some other standard, like Brown & Sharp, or US Standard.

One of the early makes of American cars I work on (from 1902 to early 30's), that car club has over 20K of the original factory drawings. They were one of the earliest auto manufacturers to join the SAE and they were also promoting engineering standards. Their engineers were some of the best and most innovative in the industry. All the blue prints for the sheet metal parts in those cars use that same US Standard Gage that I mentioned.

Today, some use the American Wire Gage that DLJ mentioned, some still use the US Standard Gage. But switch to galvanized steel, or sheet brass, or aluminum, and the gage thickness changes again for the same gage number.

When I call my metal supplier we use decimal thickness to avoid confusion. When I go there to pickup my order I bring my sheet metal gages along to make sure. A lot easier to use than trying to read a micrometer in a poorly lit warehouse.

Edit. Those two pocket gages I use have the gage number next to each slot on one side and the decimal equivalent of that gage on the back side of the gage. One is the "US Standard Gage" I mentioned. The other gage in the pocket case is the "American Standard Wire Gage for non-ferrous metals" (aka AWG). I use that one for sheet aluminum.

Paul

dlj · Post by **dlj** » Tue. May. 16, 2017 9:54 pm

Paul,

Your mic didn't look like it was a ball end mic, couldn't really tell, but looked more like a double flat end mic. You can't actually measure a curved surface accurately with that kid of micrometer. Not saying you don't have 16 gauge, but if you didn't have a ball end mic, that measurement was not accurate.

Just for anyone that may like to have a copy, here's a scanned image of a table out of one of my old metallurgy books (lower left hand table on this page) that is a nice condensed version of different gauge sizes in a bunch of different systems, including some old ones...

dj

.JPG | 250.6KB | gauge20170516.jpg

philthy · Post by **philthy** » Tue. May. 16, 2017 10:25 pm

And the plot thickens! You guys are good and I appreciate the education. Wasn't until this thread that I even knew about U.S. standard and AWG. I just figured "gauge" was a universal measurement.

I use to buy aluminum sheet for making race car panels and it was always referenced by grade and decimal thickness as in .050 5053 for example. Do they apply gauge measurements to that as well? Tubing is a lot easier as it is measured by outside diameter and wall thickness. Pretty hard to mess that up!

mntbugy · Post by **mntbugy** » Tue. May. 16, 2017 10:27 pm

Measured my 114 barrel with snap caliper. Got .045-.042 Thinner in bead edge were it stretched
Aluminum gauge is thinner than steel. Different for stainless steel also

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Tue. May. 16, 2017 11:40 pm

dlj wrote:Paul,

Your mic didn't look like it was a ball end mic, couldn't really tell, but looked more like a double flat end mic. You can't actually measure a curved surface accurately with that kid of micrometer. Not saying you don't have 16 gauge, but if you didn't have a ball end mic, that measurement was not accurate.

Just for anyone that may like to have a copy, here's a scanned image of a table out of one of my old metallurgy books (lower left hand table on this page) that is a nice condensed version of different gauge sizes in a bunch of different systems, including some old ones...

dj

gauge20170516.jpg

Dave,
Yes they are flat. But the center gap against the inside curve is almost too slight to see. It's in shadow in the picture but I checked it when I was mic-ing the surface in several places. It's only off by a few thousands at most. And at that, the gap is likely made up for by the what the original surface lost in thickness to rust and sand blasting.

Paul

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Tue. May. 16, 2017 11:44 pm

mntbugy wrote:Measured my 114 barrel with snap caliper. Got .045-.042 Thinner in bead edge were it stretched
Aluminum gauge is thinner than steel. Different for stainless steel also

And different again for galvanized sheet steel.

Paul

Pauliewog · Post by **Pauliewog** » Wed. May. 17, 2017 12:07 pm

I got a call back today from a former customer and he may have found a suitable heavy duty powered beader that the company no longer needs. Hopefully it's in decent condition and priced right.

I'm fortunate to have 24/ 7 access to a manual and four nice power rolls at the facility where I am setting up my new shop . The largest one in the last picture they use to roll up to 1/2" round stock and 3/16" plate.

Paulie

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Wed. May. 17, 2017 12:56 pm

3/16 huh ? That'll add new meaning to the term, bullet proof stove construction.

Paul

Pauliewog · Post by **Pauliewog** » Wed. May. 17, 2017 3:49 pm

Sunny Boy wrote:3/16 huh ? That'll add new meaning to the term, bullet proof stove construction.

Paul

On the bright side........ I don't think a 3/16" barrel will require a strengthing bead. That bigger roll has slots for rolling up to 1/2" round bar stock.

Maybe bend up a couple rings in place of the beads for decoration.

Paulie

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Wed. May. 17, 2017 4:05 pm

Yeah, I noticed the grooved rollers on that hand crank model. Reminds me of the ones I used to see in the old tin-knocker shops and school metal shop classroom.

Paul

philthy · Post by **philthy** » Sat. May. 20, 2017 7:37 pm

A little more work and a little messing around with the iphone.

mntbugy · Post by **mntbugy** » Sat. May. 20, 2017 7:50 pm

Looking good
Like that black & white pic, makes it look old timey

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Sun. May. 21, 2017 10:01 am

mntbugy wrote:Looking good
Like that black & white pic, makes it look old timey

+ 1. Nice affect.

Even nicer will be seeing it finished.

Paul

Pauliewog · Post by **Pauliewog** » Sun. May. 21, 2017 1:58 pm

Coming along really nice, and it looks like you have the hardest part done. Did you try buffing out any of the nickel ?

Paulie

philthy · Post by **philthy** » Sun. May. 21, 2017 8:43 pm

Thanks guys.

Didn't get a chance to polish anything yet but getting there. I was just going to have it re-nickled but think I'll try and polish first. Nothing ventured nothing gained they say.

My GW 116

Attachments

Attachments