Hello I'm new here. I wasn't happy with my rusted burner components on one of my 502 classic stoves. So, I modeled the components in CAD and am having new bronze infused stainless parts made. The parts shown are to check dimensions and to do a burn test on the metal cap that was made. I'll let you know how it turns out. Let me know what you think. I'm looking for feedback.
Nice stove. With mine, I started with that route too and the ceramic paint held up well. But, I didnt like the heavy pitting in the burner components and I thought I'd see if I could remake these components in stainless using CAD. I'm now thinking about a one piece design for the burner.
i had no idea you could do something like that. maybe these parts printers i see making stuff could be the answer to the lack of spare parts for old stoves.
Exactly what I was thinking. I wanted to replace the burner assembly and did this after I found that there were no parts available. I was surprised that I didnt see this yet in the forum. The parts printer (laser sintering) done in metal can produce designs impossible to make by any other means. If a model can be made, you can make the part.
I think that the sintered laser 3D printed parts need firing/fusing in a furnace , but the size reduces in the firing/fusing process . this could cause problems with making parts kerry
I was also thinking of getting one for the antique gravelys I also collect...my friend has a 3d printer but he can only do the material when you purchase the plastic for melting... Gary
Hell, you could lathe turn those parts much easier then f**king around with CAD and sintered metal printing. A good machinist can turn one out while you're sill working on the CAD model, and out of damn near any metal you could ask for. Now, it you're going into production, it's a different story, but a CNC lathe is still more efficient, and less hassle with shrink and surface finish. IMO, you found a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Murph
well, I did not join this list list for people to cuss and swear,...I came for good advice...if this is the way it is going to be them in gone...kids look at this list also... thanks, Gary remember those who preserve the past also serve the future!!!
Actually, the smaller CAD model took me all of 10 min to make and I had the CAD uploaded and part ordered in another 10. Sure the lathe option is available, but i'm working with new technology that brings a cool factor.
Not to self: I'm not in the shop, re: language. That said, yep, it's cool, but.. I remember the first parts I was shown, looked like a medium grade sand casting or poor grade investment casting, surface blems and the like. I was more impressive when I was told how it was really made, but to the eye, it wasn't making it. I suspect given a year or three, the parts will look as good, if not better that machined parts as the technology matures and the machines and their software gets better. It's one of the things that's impressive about these old stoves, they've lasted over 100+ years and made with what we see these days as rather simple machinery, much of it hand powered, run by craftsmen of the day. Given that the last of the 502's were made in 1972, the fact of these lasting over 40 to 50 years and being found in running condition says a lot about them in itself. Murph
Gary wrote: "well, I did not join this list list for people to cuss and swear,...I came for good advice...if this is the way it is going to be them in gone...kids look at this list also... thanks, Gary remember those who preserve the past also serve the future!!! " Good Morning, Gary, One thing I would advise, if I may? Please don't judge an entire forum by the actions of just one member!! Yes, we do have a few "rough and tumble" members, and that's just the way of it. But, by far, those folks are out-numbered by very nice, very kind, and very considerate Stovies, who do not offer up profanity to make a point. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!! Now, also see that the offending person has apologized, and his last post was just fine, IMHO. Stick around. I think you will have found a very nice home here at CCS, and once you get used to the few "over the line" personalities that will be found here (probably me, included, if you ask anyone!! ), I strongly believe that you will very much enjoy being a part of the wonderful stuff that goes on here!!! Just my two cents, but hopefully worth at least a little consideration. Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc
Actually I agree with Murph, having worked with a guy who used a CNC lathe a lot in the school workshop. (btw, Note to Gary... Murphs language is actually very tame compared to a lot of language found in schools today if we apply the "social use test" to grading language). I am continually impressed with what they can do with even a simple CNC lathe used by kids. Stan
So Murph, can you spin this on your CNC lathe in one piece? I'm not looking for production volumes so laser sintered makes sense for my needs.
wouldnt this part of been a metal stamping originaly? Biggest problem I can see with metal printing is the requirement to be about 3mm thick.
Welcome mkovach, Haste makes waste... but not always. In 1962 when Coleman US designed the 502 they were in a big hurry. They adopted the band-a-blue for it. By 1963 they had the final version and that hastily made 502 is one of their best stoves. It remained, unchanged, in production from 63 to '83. "The things just work." You were looking for feedback: > Maybe consider keeping the band-a-blue rings, sandwiched btwn stainless. > Note re existing fasteners they withstand cherry red heat and remain serviceable (after 50 years). > Many burners have bowl or curved shape surrounding the flame and not sure if your wide flat bottom will work as well as curved shapes. > Not sure what you plan for a grate.... the 576, the 400 & 550 series are "improved" burners and you may consider a grate similar to those? It's an interesting post and there's some feedback. thx
Nope, you won't make that on any lathe in one piece, but since it's not original to the stove, you can make it (or anything else)any way you want to. I can make it in two pieces, and join them so well, they may as well be one, and not be bound by the 3mm wall thickness issues as well. I'd wager the wall thickness issues will cause problems with the stove burner heating up to operating temps, take far longer to come up to speed. The dished shape on the center of the original burner also made a nice preheat cup for arctic conditions, one more plus you'll lose with that one-piece design. The small holes in the thick walls will also act as a restriction, you might be disappointed at the flame size you get compared to the original wrinkle/flat washer design. I'm also wondering how well the parent material will take threading, for the burner tube that threads into it, might not work well with the fine threads, or you could find the expansion differences of the alloys causes the burner to "shrink fit" itself permanently to the tube, and you're out of luck. You asked for feedback, you got it. Murph
Actually the thickness of the part is only .060" or 1.5mm. The one piece design I shared is not final. I'm going to merge the original bowl design into it. Murph, tell me about this arctic condition preheat function. This is the first I've ever heard about this feature. Putting the dish feature into the cup is easy.
