Stainless Steel Meg Handle

tibby · 26th September 2007, 04:22

Quote: (Originally Posted by cool_hardware52)

Lead is not a lot of fun to machine. Hard to hold on to, enviro problems etc.

It is OTOH quite nice for casting.

Tobin

Yes, lead is moulded and stamped but rarely machined. Ever tried to drill a hole in lead?...it's a fun experience...We use a bunch of both lead and tungsten at work for x-ray shielding and learned the hard way. Tungsten is an expensive material but due to extra steps in machining it doubles its cost. Another fun project is to try to cut a 1mm sheet of tungsten on a standard saw, mill...it doesn't work, you need at least a wire EDM.
Tibby

**Monkey** · 27th September 2007, 03:23

Guys I did not have a chance to work out the pricing with my machinist. I need 1 more day to do that.. however I have decided there will be the following.

Lead is out.

Stainless and Tungsten and Titanium are in.

Handles and shims will come in 2 sizes. Standard and Large

Standard stainless will give you 1 pound for handle and 1/2 pound per shim.. so that will give you a 1 to 2 pound kit. (you can double shim)

Large stainless will give you 2 pounds in the handle and 1 pound in the shim. so that will give you a 2 to 4 pound kit. (you can double shim)

since Tungsten is .697 lbs/cu in. and the steel is .285 lbs/cu in. the Tungsten will be heavy.. so they are special order only . and the alloy cost is 3 times more than the steel.

Titanium is .163 lbs/cu in. so it serves no real weight/trim need.. so its only real use is to make it look cool. Titanium is also special order only. and its cost will be in the "stupid" catagory

engraving is also going to be available.

I will also have a Heavily machined Stainless handle the will come in at 5 ounces ...for the I don't need the weight but want the "bling" people.

exact cost of the kits will be on its way tomorow.

Monkey

**Monkey** · 2nd October 2007, 21:46

Here are pictures of the heavy handle and shim.... you can see them next to the standard... I am looking for feed back ..... and speak up if its negative. I want to get it right the first time..

and I apologise for the delays... I have been Jammed up..

gottrimix · 2nd October 2007, 22:38

Nice work!!!!

Explorer · 3rd October 2007, 03:33

Sweet. Nice job. Very clean.

steveharriss · 3rd October 2007, 04:16

In my opinion you need to loose some of the extra weight to regain the underhang that allows you to obtain proper purchase on the handle so that you can remove the head more easily.

The current design of the heavier weight handle looks like it would make the job near impossible in adverse conditions with wet hands.

Just a thought. Really liked the original handle.

**Monkey** · 3rd October 2007, 12:03

Quote: (Originally Posted by steveharriss)

In my opinion you need to loose some of the extra weight to regain the underhang that allows you to obtain proper purchase on the handle so that you can remove the head more easily.

The current design of the heavier weight handle looks like it would make the job near impossible in adverse condtions with wet hands.

Just a thought. Really liked the original handle.

my thoughts exactly... however.. with dry hands it does provide enough grip to pull the head.. and you can get two hands on it.

w ripley · 3rd October 2007, 18:51

Now that I think about it, I don't know how much I want to be taking off one handle and putting on another. It could be a pain in the neck and maybe even have water-tightness issues. Yet I know that I need different weighting for fresh vs salt water, etc. Right now I'm switching weights by using velcro lid type pouches (with soft weights) that are held on to my tanks with the tank-mouning straps. It's a spin-off of using leg weights around those tanks. They work pretty well, but your approach is clener and just better.

If there is no problem with constantly switching out the handles that tread into the Meg's head, then no problem. However, if you see a long-term issue with that approach (let's say you need to switch out handles -- between the smaller SS and the larger -- 6 to 8 times a year), then maybe you would consider a slightly different approach.

When I saw your larger SS "chunk" in the newer photos it occured to me that maybe you could machine one SS "base" (about the same sized footprint as your larger "chunk", but no where as thick). You could then use that base to switch out on it both the smaller and the larger "hand holds."

That single piece of SS base could then be permanently screwed (and sealed) onto the Meg's head, using the existing holes in the Meg's head. You would then drill and tap that base plate so that larger and smaller hand holds could be mounted on it, depending on the weight you are looking to add or subtract. A better idea might be to use your original hand hold size with different spacers, i.e., interchangable parts vs different parts. The machine screw holes for the hand holds might have to have a different location, so as to not conflict with those going into the Meg's head.

If you decide to stay with the two different sizes, then you could make the "chunk" larger (let it grow towards the hose attachment points) and then machine out enough SS to give you the hand hold that is needed. Or you could drill and tap the "chunk" you have and put a smaller hand hold on top of it, similar to the first idea above.

I'm ready for whatever you come up with.

Bill

**Monkey** · 4th October 2007, 03:53

Quote: (Originally Posted by w ripley)

Now that I think about it, I don't know how much I want to be taking off one handle and putting on another. It could be a pain in the neck and maybe even have water-tightness issues. Yet I know that I need different weighting for fresh vs salt water, etc. Right now I'm switching weights by using velcro lid type pouches (with soft weights) that are held on to my tanks with the tank-mouning straps. It's a spin-off of using leg weights around those tanks. They work pretty well, but your approach is clener and just better.

If there is no problem with constantly switching out the handles that tread into the Meg's head, then no problem. However, if you see a long-term issue with that approach (let's say you need to switch out handles -- between the smaller SS and the larger -- 6 to 8 times a year), then maybe you would consider a slightly different approach.

When I saw your larger SS "chunk" in the newer photos it occured to me that maybe you could machine one SS "base" (about the same sized footprint as your larger "chunk", but no where as thick). You could then use that base to switch out on it both the smaller and the larger "hand holds."

That single piece of SS base could then be permanently screwed (and sealed) onto the Meg's head, using the existing holes in the Meg's head. You would then drill and tap that base plate so that larger and smaller hand holds could be mounted on it, depending on the weight you are looking to add or subtract. A better idea might be to use your original hand hold size with different spacers, i.e., interchangable parts vs different parts. The machine screw holes for the hand holds might have to have a different location, so as to not conflict with those going into the Meg's head.

If you decide to stay with the two different sizes, then you could make the "chunk" larger (let it grow towards the hose attachment points) and then machine out enough SS to give you the hand hold that is needed. Or you could drill and tap the "chunk" you have and put a smaller hand hold on top of it, similar to the first idea above.

I'm ready for whatever you come up with.

Bill

I will discuss in the morning with my machinist... but I have have had the handles on and off 50 times and have not had any problems...

jdicediver · 16th November 2007, 14:19

Quote: (Originally Posted by Monkey)

Large stainless will give you 2 pounds in the handle and 1 pound in the shim. so that will give you a 2 to 4 pound kit. (you can double shim)

engraving is also going to be available.

I will also have a Heavily machined Stainless handle the will come in at 5 ounces ...for the I don't need the weight but want the "bling" people.

Monkey

What about a "Combo Kit" which includes a large stainless (2 X 1 lb shims) and a heavily machined "Bling" handle? Engraved...hmmm possibilities abound.

26th September 2007, 04:22	#21 (permalink)
tibby untitled Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: May 2007 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 327	Re: Stainless Steel Meg Handle Quote: (Originally Posted by cool_hardware52) Lead is not a lot of fun to machine. Hard to hold on to, enviro problems etc. It is OTOH quite nice for casting. Tobin Yes, lead is moulded and stamped but rarely machined. Ever tried to drill a hole in lead?...it's a fun experience...We use a bunch of both lead and tungsten at work for x-ray shielding and learned the hard way. Tungsten is an expensive material but due to extra steps in machining it doubles its cost. Another fun project is to try to cut a 1mm sheet of tungsten on a standard saw, mill...it doesn't work, you need at least a wire EDM. Tibby __________________ Does the voice of reason change when you add helium to the mix?...hmm
(Offline)

27th September 2007, 03:23	#22 (permalink)
Monkey Supporting Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Lauderdale By The Sea Florida Posts: 324	Re: Stainless Steel Meg Handle Guys I did not have a chance to work out the pricing with my machinist. I need 1 more day to do that.. however I have decided there will be the following. Lead is out. Stainless and Tungsten and Titanium are in. Handles and shims will come in 2 sizes. Standard and Large Standard stainless will give you 1 pound for handle and 1/2 pound per shim.. so that will give you a 1 to 2 pound kit. (you can double shim) Large stainless will give you 2 pounds in the handle and 1 pound in the shim. so that will give you a 2 to 4 pound kit. (you can double shim) since Tungsten is .697 lbs/cu in. and the steel is .285 lbs/cu in. the Tungsten will be heavy.. so they are special order only . and the alloy cost is 3 times more than the steel. Titanium is .163 lbs/cu in. so it serves no real weight/trim need.. so its only real use is to make it look cool. Titanium is also special order only. and its cost will be in the "stupid" catagory engraving is also going to be available. I will also have a Heavily machined Stainless handle the will come in at 5 ounces ...for the I don't need the weight but want the "bling" people. exact cost of the kits will be on its way tomorow. Monkey Last edited by Monkey : 27th September 2007 at 03:29.
(Offline)

2nd October 2007, 22:38	#24 (permalink)
gottrimix New Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Henderson, Nevada Posts: 53	Re: Stainless Steel Meg Handle Nice work!!!! __________________ Steve www.lakemeadtechnicaldivers.com
(Online)

3rd October 2007, 03:33	#25 (permalink)
Explorer Be vewy vewy quiet.... Current Rebreather/s: Evolution Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 748	Re: Stainless Steel Meg Handle Sweet. Nice job. Very clean. __________________ TRAIN WRECKED.....
(Online)

3rd October 2007, 04:16	#26 (permalink)
steveharriss Bubble free by choice Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 161	Re: Stainless Steel Meg Handle In my opinion you need to loose some of the extra weight to regain the underhang that allows you to obtain proper purchase on the handle so that you can remove the head more easily. The current design of the heavier weight handle looks like it would make the job near impossible in adverse conditions with wet hands. Just a thought. Really liked the original handle. Last edited by steveharriss : 3rd October 2007 at 12:26. Reason: spelling
(Offline)

3rd October 2007, 12:03	#27 (permalink)
Monkey Supporting Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Lauderdale By The Sea Florida Posts: 324	Re: Stainless Steel Meg Handle Quote: (Originally Posted by steveharriss) In my opinion you need to loose some of the extra weight to regain the underhang that allows you to obtain proper purchase on the handle so that you can remove the head more easily. The current design of the heavier weight handle looks like it would make the job near impossible in adverse condtions with wet hands. Just a thought. Really liked the original handle. my thoughts exactly... however.. with dry hands it does provide enough grip to pull the head.. and you can get two hands on it.
(Offline)

3rd October 2007, 18:51	#28 (permalink)
w ripley Sorta New Member Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other CCR Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Norfolk VA USA Posts: 110	Re: Stainless Steel Meg Handle Now that I think about it, I don't know how much I want to be taking off one handle and putting on another. It could be a pain in the neck and maybe even have water-tightness issues. Yet I know that I need different weighting for fresh vs salt water, etc. Right now I'm switching weights by using velcro lid type pouches (with soft weights) that are held on to my tanks with the tank-mouning straps. It's a spin-off of using leg weights around those tanks. They work pretty well, but your approach is clener and just better. If there is no problem with constantly switching out the handles that tread into the Meg's head, then no problem. However, if you see a long-term issue with that approach (let's say you need to switch out handles -- between the smaller SS and the larger -- 6 to 8 times a year), then maybe you would consider a slightly different approach. When I saw your larger SS "chunk" in the newer photos it occured to me that maybe you could machine one SS "base" (about the same sized footprint as your larger "chunk", but no where as thick). You could then use that base to switch out on it both the smaller and the larger "hand holds." That single piece of SS base could then be permanently screwed (and sealed) onto the Meg's head, using the existing holes in the Meg's head. You would then drill and tap that base plate so that larger and smaller hand holds could be mounted on it, depending on the weight you are looking to add or subtract. A better idea might be to use your original hand hold size with different spacers, i.e., interchangable parts vs different parts. The machine screw holes for the hand holds might have to have a different location, so as to not conflict with those going into the Meg's head. If you decide to stay with the two different sizes, then you could make the "chunk" larger (let it grow towards the hose attachment points) and then machine out enough SS to give you the hand hold that is needed. Or you could drill and tap the "chunk" you have and put a smaller hand hold on top of it, similar to the first idea above. I'm ready for whatever you come up with. Bill
(Offline)

4th October 2007, 03:53	#29 (permalink)
Monkey Supporting Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Lauderdale By The Sea Florida Posts: 324	Re: Stainless Steel Meg Handle Quote: (Originally Posted by w ripley) Now that I think about it, I don't know how much I want to be taking off one handle and putting on another. It could be a pain in the neck and maybe even have water-tightness issues. Yet I know that I need different weighting for fresh vs salt water, etc. Right now I'm switching weights by using velcro lid type pouches (with soft weights) that are held on to my tanks with the tank-mouning straps. It's a spin-off of using leg weights around those tanks. They work pretty well, but your approach is clener and just better. If there is no problem with constantly switching out the handles that tread into the Meg's head, then no problem. However, if you see a long-term issue with that approach (let's say you need to switch out handles -- between the smaller SS and the larger -- 6 to 8 times a year), then maybe you would consider a slightly different approach. When I saw your larger SS "chunk" in the newer photos it occured to me that maybe you could machine one SS "base" (about the same sized footprint as your larger "chunk", but no where as thick). You could then use that base to switch out on it both the smaller and the larger "hand holds." That single piece of SS base could then be permanently screwed (and sealed) onto the Meg's head, using the existing holes in the Meg's head. You would then drill and tap that base plate so that larger and smaller hand holds could be mounted on it, depending on the weight you are looking to add or subtract. A better idea might be to use your original hand hold size with different spacers, i.e., interchangable parts vs different parts. The machine screw holes for the hand holds might have to have a different location, so as to not conflict with those going into the Meg's head. If you decide to stay with the two different sizes, then you could make the "chunk" larger (let it grow towards the hose attachment points) and then machine out enough SS to give you the hand hold that is needed. Or you could drill and tap the "chunk" you have and put a smaller hand hold on top of it, similar to the first idea above. I'm ready for whatever you come up with. Bill I will discuss in the morning with my machinist... but I have have had the handles on and off 50 times and have not had any problems...
(Offline)

16th November 2007, 14:19	#30 (permalink)
jdicediver Single/burdened with cash Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 253	Re: Stainless Steel Meg Handle Quote: (Originally Posted by Monkey) Large stainless will give you 2 pounds in the handle and 1 pound in the shim. so that will give you a 2 to 4 pound kit. (you can double shim) engraving is also going to be available. I will also have a Heavily machined Stainless handle the will come in at 5 ounces ...for the I don't need the weight but want the "bling" people. Monkey What about a "Combo Kit" which includes a large stainless (2 X 1 lb shims) and a heavily machined "Bling" handle? Engraved...hmmm possibilities abound. __________________ Regards; "Alterations performed under controlled conditions, on a closed course by a qualified Closed Circuit Diver" "Some people shouldn't dive...others shouldn't even get wet".
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode