I was next door to such a place and asked the first guy I saw standing around. He gave me one and offered others, so I guess they have trouble getting rid of them.
From: Donald Miller <donald1miller@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [papercreters] McCain scissor mixer vs spacemans
To: papercreters@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 3:03 PM
The elephant trunk you mentioned as a possible change in an earlier post will work well for you. I have one on my tow mixer and I am very pleased with it. I used a truck inner tube as that was what I had. The online video I saw about making this type of valve showed a car tube so they work as well. I just used the truck one as I had an old one laying around and I didn't have any car tubes.
--- On Wed, 10/10/12, spaceman <Spaceman@starship-enterprises.net> wrote:
From: spaceman <Spaceman@starship-enterprises.net>
Subject: Re: [papercreters] McCain scissor mixer vs spacemans
To: papercreters@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 2:10 AM
My "gate valve" doesn't work in this application, so I'll have to change that to get it to hold water. I did an aborted test with damp paper, and it sure slung it without a top. I think with a top and a tank of water it is going to wail.
On 10/9/2012 10:22 PM, Donald Miller wrote:
Your mixer is looking good. I'm looking forward to seeing it in action. Would definitely be a good alternative or addition to a tow mixer. I'm going ahead with my tow mixer fix but would definitely like to build a scissors one copying yours after you get the bug worked out, assuming you have any to deal with. It looks like it should work pretty good as is.
--- On Tue, 10/9/12, spaceman <Spaceman@starship-enterprises.net> wrote:
From: spaceman <Spaceman@starship-enterprises.net>
Subject: Re: [papercreters] McCain scissor mixer vs spacemans
To: papercreters@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2012, 5:09 PM
Yep, that's already on the drawing board : )
Probably shorten the blades, too.
On 10/9/2012 5:31 PM, Alan wrote:
From: spaceman <Spaceman@starship-enterprises.net>
Subject: Re: [papercreters] McCain scissor mixer vs spacemans
To: papercreters@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2012, 7:22 PM
http://www.starship-enterprises.net/ScissorsDrumMixer/ has a link and embedded video at the bottom showing the smoke test. I'm pleased, need to tighten the belt and then give it a load of paper to munch.
spaceman
On 10/9/2012 2:11 PM, spaceman wrote:
Thanks Charmaine, that helps. I must have missed your photos and full description. It looks like his whole thing is a lot smaller. I'm afraid mine will be too robust, should know in a couple of hours since I intend to test today.
It looks like he used smaller angle iron, but yeah, I used what I had and bigger is better, right? I'm already anticipating shortening my blades. While his pipe is thicker than my shaft, I used solid steel which should be at least as strong. I left the extra metal on top of the fork because I only had to cut that piece once, better utilizing the scrap I had, and I figured it would give some amount of mixing action on top as well as on bottom. I can always cut them off if they just trap paper or something. There isn't much clearance between the spinning blades and the stationary fork, maybe the orientation of the angle won't be a problem. All in all it is basically the same design so obviously I saw enough detail in the one photo I had seen that the rest followed logically. Mike is very innovative when it comes to pc mixers.
spaceman
On 10/9/2012 12:36 PM, Charmaine Taylor wrote:
The Scissor blades Mike created differ in 4 ways, but yours looks very similar. If you run into snags in use consider these differences to see if it makes a change for improved performance.. which all that counts.
My friend Dave bought these blades from Mike for $75. 7 years ago before he stopped making them.
I am attaching a photo of the assembled mixer, I can't seem to access the photo files.
1. The angle iron used is thicker, and the slide-thru power rod is thicker, but use whatcha' got, right?.
2. the spinning blades are much shorter...half of what shows here AND they are attached as TWO pieces on one pipe. so the angle faces in opposite directions when welded on.
AND the short spinning angles are NOT facing sideways as yours are. You may lose chopping power that way.
If you took a longer attachment pipe, and welded two of 3"-4" blades on again the angles face opposite eachother. Mike said it gave even more chopping power as the paper is being forced thru the 3 blades.
3. the bottom angle brace for the 3 blades is turned the opposite way to match the angle of the 3 blades., so paper wont trap against it. and it is not attached to the barrell, just rests on the bottom.
4, the welded pipe circles are right at the top of the 3 blades. no extra metal sticks up.
For some reason Mike found shorter spinning blades worked better. your assembly looks the same for powering up.
To support Mike I had offered a set of the assembly and parts photos for sale $12.00 when I had the big bookstore but have't put them on the small site. He wanted others to make their own when he stopped selling sets himself, and had no time.
A few months ago I think I posted photos here and a full description of assembly, maybe it was OA list.. anyway they are very simple, once seen, to make.
but what you show here may be close enough that everyone can make their own. good luck!
--
Charmaine
Charmaine Taylor/Publishing & Elk River Press
PO Box 375 Cutten CA 95534
www.papercrete.com
Robert Heinlein (1907-1988) "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: 10/08/12
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: 10/08/12
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: 10/08/12
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: 10/08/12
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: 10/08/12
__._,_.___
