Mike Sharkey Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 http://gfycat.com/WanImaginativeGreendarnerdragonflyI feel like this belongs here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stCoC Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 A big question I have wondered about. Taking in the wire type is the same chemical steel mixture in grippers, and two decades ago , the names from Warren Tetting heavy duty, super duty, and super heavy duty were interchanged with the terms 1,2,3 what was the relation of percent increase of resistance as spring diameters increased ? I don't think the increase in wire diameter was linear to the resistance gained by a multiplying surface area. Using the spring diameter of a #1 as a logical starting point of .245" we move up .019 " to the #2 at .264" oddly enough ( I don't think linear in actual resistance) another .019" brings us up to the .283 of the #3 gripper. At this point here I become interested that instead of another .019" added ( or less to be strength / area proportionate )the spring later brought out for the #4 is .310 or.027" far above the .019. If an engineer dealing with torsion spring would lend his expertise to chime in I think if the spring increases followed a normal strength proportion curve perhaps the early phantom or present recently introduced # 3.5 with a spring of .295 might have been a more accurate and logical step to what based on the 1,2,3 strength and progression levels were and are. A .012" inch increase over the 3 spring ( at .295")adding considerable area and strength perhaps in a "joking way "was the what a #4 logically could/ should have been? The spring on a present #4 is 42.1 percent increase above the normal .019 increase of all grippers that preceded it. Anyone care to supply facts? I plan on contacting a few torsion manufacturers to find the relationship between spring diameter and area strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcottrell Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Very cool to watch this. I remember being very disappointed after buying the CoC "how they are made and how to close them" book and being very disappointed when it did not show how they are actually made. Great find! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mohamed Diab Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 A big question I have wondered about. Taking in the wire type is the same chemical steel mixture in grippers, and two decades ago , the names from Warren Tetting heavy duty, super duty, and super heavy duty were interchanged with the terms 1,2,3 what was the relation of percent increase of resistance as spring diameters increased ? I don't think the increase in wire diameter was linear to the resistance gained by a multiplying surface area. Using the spring diameter of a #1 as a logical starting point of .245" we move up .019 " to the #2 at .264" oddly enough ( I don't think linear in actual resistance) another .019" brings us up to the .283 of the #3 gripper. At this point here I become interested that instead of another .019" added ( or less to be strength / area proportionate )the spring later brought out for the #4 is .310 or.027" far above the .019. If an engineer dealing with torsion spring would lend his expertise to chime in I think if the spring increases followed a normal strength proportion curve perhaps the early phantom or present recently introduced # 3.5 with a spring of .295 might have been a more accurate and logical step to what based on the 1,2,3 strength and progression levels were and are. A .012" inch increase over the 3 spring ( at .295")adding considerable area and strength perhaps in a "joking way "was the what a #4 logically could/ should have been? The spring on a present #4 is 42.1 percent increase above the normal .019 increase of all grippers that preceded it. Anyone care to supply facts? I plan on contacting a few torsion manufacturers to find the relationship between spring diameter and area strength. the strength is affected by many factors some are the wire diameter , the length of moment arm and i don't know the specific translation of it so you could say the the spring circle diameter , i used this site this site the last year it has general information about springs and there is a section for torsion springs you could find on the left panel http://springipedia.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stCoC Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Has anyone matched up spring sizes with gripper strength calibrations? That may tell if there is a "logical strength curve increase"to expect for a1,2,3 and 4 gripper by percentage or poundage? Was the #4 in line or an anomaly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 The increments in the MashMonster levels were mainly done with mounting depth. I forget now what max depth we used and then would go "up" a spring diameter. There is a post somewhere on the board that outlines the levels with spring size and mounting depth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slazbob Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 A big question I have wondered about. Taking in the wire type is the same chemical steel mixture in grippers, and two decades ago , the names from Warren Tetting heavy duty, super duty, and super heavy duty were interchanged with the terms 1,2,3 what was the relation of percent increase of resistance as spring diameters increased ? I don't think the increase in wire diameter was linear to the resistance gained by a multiplying surface area. Using the spring diameter of a #1 as a logical starting point of .245" we move up .019 " to the #2 at .264" oddly enough ( I don't think linear in actual resistance) another .019" brings us up to the .283 of the #3 gripper. At this point here I become interested that instead of another .019" added ( or less to be strength / area proportionate )the spring later brought out for the #4 is .310 or.027" far above the .019. If an engineer dealing with torsion spring would lend his expertise to chime in I think if the spring increases followed a normal strength proportion curve perhaps the early phantom or present recently introduced # 3.5 with a spring of .295 might have been a more accurate and logical step to what based on the 1,2,3 strength and progression levels were and are. A .012" inch increase over the 3 spring ( at .295")adding considerable area and strength perhaps in a "joking way "was the what a #4 logically could/ should have been? The spring on a present #4 is 42.1 percent increase above the normal .019 increase of all grippers that preceded it. Anyone care to supply facts? I plan on contacting a few torsion manufacturers to find the relationship between spring diameter and area strength. .295 is an elite spring size. I believe the 3.5 is .306? It didn't follow back in the day... But they seem to follow each other now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 The increments in the MashMonster levels were mainly done with mounting depth. I forget now what max depth we used and then would go "up" a spring diameter. There is a post somewhere on the board that outlines the levels with spring size and mounting depth. 1/4" and 3/16" mounts. Standard mount for Tettings is anywhere from flush to 1/16" or a bit more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stCoC Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 .295 is what both the phantom and 3.5 measure on a dial caliper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 IM #3 or BB Grand Master would be .281, .294-.295 would be appropriate wire size for BB Elite or IM #3.5. A Super Elite would be .306, and Grand Elite or IM #4 would be .312 - Aaron 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slazbob Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I always thought the super elite had the same wire size as a 3.5 ..my mistake. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I watched that video for 5 minutes and only stopped because the wind slammed a door. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stCoC Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Think on this guys this might be with a logical mathematical or science of spring mechanics "answer "if there is any relation between the 1,2,3, and 4 or was it just thrown together and added with common spring size available. If someone could do the figures what would be the logical size for the#4 when it came time to be " created"? Was the phantom at .295 or the eventual .310 #IM. 4 the natural successor to the #3????? I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I believe there is an issue of readily available spring sizes. I don't think it's any wonder that all gripper brands are drawing from roughly the same set of choices. This also explains the few "dead zones" for ratings that we can never seem to hit unless a few variables are stacked and you get lucky. A few examples are grippers that rate around 90, 130, and 170. No matter the brand, those numbers rarely come up. In the case of a 170 gripper, it's because you really need spring stock between the .295 and .306 but there is not one that I know of. So we only tend to hit that range on a .295 with a buried mount (and usually not even then) or a .306 with handles mounted 5/16" or more off the spring (and still usually not even then). If there were spring stock at .300 or something, that would be ideal. But I've never heard of that unless it was going to be turned down from .306. There also isn't a common fraction that supports stock like that. For example, a .312 spring is 5/16ths and a .281 spring is 9/32nds. It's hard to account for the .306 unless it's 39/128ths. But then you can see 38/128ths is the ~.296 spring and then 40/128s is equal to 5/16ths! There can't be anything in between where we need one for a 170 gripper unless it was going to be 256ths stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulfgeat Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) I believe there is an issue of readily available spring sizes. I don't think it's any wonder that all gripper brands are drawing from roughly the same set of choices. This also explains the few "dead zones" for ratings that we can never seem to hit unless a few variables are stacked and you get lucky. A few examples are grippers that rate around 90, 130, and 170. No matter the brand, those numbers rarely come up. In the case of a 170 gripper, it's because you really need spring stock between the .295 and .306 but there is not one that I know of. So we only tend to hit that range on a .295 with a buried mount (and usually not even then) or a .306 with handles mounted 5/16" or more off the spring (and still usually not even then). If there were spring stock at .300 or something, that would be ideal. But I've never heard of that unless it was going to be turned down from .306. There also isn't a common fraction that supports stock like that. For example, a .312 spring is 5/16ths and a .281 spring is 9/32nds. It's hard to account for the .306 unless it's 39/128ths. But then you can see 38/128ths is the ~.296 spring and then 40/128s is equal to 5/16ths! There can't be anything in between where we need one for a 170 gripper unless it was going to be 256ths stock. I suppose then that you remember recently (shipped on May 9) rating my #170 Elite mailed with a #195 Super Elite (silver tags)? What do you think made that one come out to #170? Edited May 28, 2014 by wulfgeat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 My guess is a combo of: *spring stock on the thick side of manufacturing tolerance *mounting depth *possibly the specific alloy mix in that spring *possibly the winding of the spring binds slightly and causes a little extra friction. I'm obviously guessing, and there's just as many variables in the rating process, but there's clearly a gap at 170 that's rare to hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulfgeat Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 My guess is a combo of: *spring stock on the thick side of manufacturing tolerance *mounting depth *possibly the specific alloy mix in that spring *possibly the winding of the spring binds slightly and causes a little extra friction. I'm obviously guessing, and there's just as many variables in the rating process, but there's clearly a gap at 170 that's rare to hit. Wow. I knew when I recieved it that I had gotten lucky, I just didn't realize I had gotten THAT lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Sharkey Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 guess i got lucky with my 130# 2.5 what are they usually? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Mike, I'm sure you saw the thing I posted but average is 126 over 33 grippers rated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stCoC Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Good points by Cannon. Every coil of wire is fairly unique as well. Warren Tetting told me he would use a caliper on each new coil of wire and along its length and its diameter always varied. I am to this day truly amazed all the factors that come to bear in every single gripper made from day 1 ( early 1900s?) to the last one perhaps a minute ago. Warren was interested in strength and in the batch of each box of in stock springs there were slight defects and if bad enough were tossed aside. The checking was done from what judged by a super good eye honed from years of production. If a different tack was used over the recent years being forthright about grippers just by their nature and construction differing ,a lot of hard feelings, endless arguments, and cover smoke screens of verbiage could and perhaps should have been avoided. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 The increments in the MashMonster levels were mainly done with mounting depth. I forget now what max depth we used and then would go "up" a spring diameter. There is a post somewhere on the board that outlines the levels with spring size and mounting depth. I found the data and it is now pinned in the MashMonster forum too: MM1 - Elite 1/4" mount, 2.75 spread MM2 - Elite 3/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM3 - Super Elite 1/4" mount, 2.75 spread MM4 - Super Elite 3/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM5 - Grand Elite 1/4" mount, 2.75 spread MM6 - Grand Elite 3/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM7 - Grand Elite 1/8" mount, 2.75 spread MM8 - Grand elite 1/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM9 - Pro 5/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM10 - Pro, 1/4" mount, 2.75 spread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 The increments in the MashMonster levels were mainly done with mounting depth. I forget now what max depth we used and then would go "up" a spring diameter. There is a post somewhere on the board that outlines the levels with spring size and mounting depth. I found the data and it is now pinned in the MashMonster forum too: MM1 - Elite 1/4" mount, 2.75 spread MM2 - Elite 3/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM3 - Super Elite 1/4" mount, 2.75 spread MM4 - Super Elite 3/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM5 - Grand Elite 1/4" mount, 2.75 spread MM6 - Grand Elite 3/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM7 - Grand Elite 1/8" mount, 2.75 spread MM8 - Grand elite 1/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM9 - Pro 5/16" mount, 2.75 spread MM10 - Pro, 1/4" mount, 2.75 spread This is also pinned in the general post about Mash Monster Certification: http://www.gripboard.com/index.php?showtopic=37521 "custom specifications" right at the top Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Strossen Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Very cool to watch this. I remember being very disappointed after buying the CoC "how they are made and how to close them" book and being very disappointed when it did not show how they are actually made. Great find! Sorry, but I think you misread and misquoted the title. The book is called Captains of Crush Grippers: What They Are and How to Close Them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Strossen Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 A big question I have wondered about. Taking in the wire type is the same chemical steel mixture in grippers, and two decades ago , the names from Warren Tetting heavy duty, super duty, and super heavy duty were interchanged with the terms 1,2,3 what was the relation of percent increase of resistance as spring diameters increased ? I don't think the increase in wire diameter was linear to the resistance gained by a multiplying surface area. Using the spring diameter of a #1 as a logical starting point of .245" we move up .019 " to the #2 at .264" oddly enough ( I don't think linear in actual resistance) another .019" brings us up to the .283 of the #3 gripper. At this point here I become interested that instead of another .019" added ( or less to be strength / area proportionate )the spring later brought out for the #4 is .310 or.027" far above the .019. If an engineer dealing with torsion spring would lend his expertise to chime in I think if the spring increases followed a normal strength proportion curve perhaps the early phantom or present recently introduced # 3.5 with a spring of .295 might have been a more accurate and logical step to what based on the 1,2,3 strength and progression levels were and are. A .012" inch increase over the 3 spring ( at .295")adding considerable area and strength perhaps in a "joking way "was the what a #4 logically could/ should have been? The spring on a present #4 is 42.1 percent increase above the normal .019 increase of all grippers that preceded it. Anyone care to supply facts? I plan on contacting a few torsion manufacturers to find the relationship between spring diameter and area strength. Richard - I think you might enjoy reading the book Captains of Crush Grippers: What They Are and How To Close Them: http://www.ironmind-store.com/Captains-of-Crush-Grippers-book-Second-Edition/productinfo/1354/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.