----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Kozlowsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} P-64 couplers?
I'm sorry John, but your reply makes no sense to me. If SHS makes their own
(in my opinion) excellent couplers, why would they include those of another
manufacturer?
RE : Ed, you obviously misunderstood my reply... I never said SHS should do any
such thing. In fact, I said exactly the opposite of that in an earlier reply
wherein I said they should include only their couplers in their products
(remember that?). All I was saying this time is that if "excellent" is all a
coupler has to be to edeserve being put in SHS kits, then, since the Kadee's
are also "excellent," shouldn't they be considered as well? My reply was more
of a nit-picky joke than anything else.
I can understand your P-64 oriented opinion about slightly out of scale
couplers, but why run down what the rest of us consider perfectly acceptable.
RE : I was not doing that. If anything, I was "encouraging" the use of the
Kadee 802/808 and SHS couplers.
If you really want P-64 couplers, I suggest you forget the existing
manufacturers, learn a good basic 3D cad package, model up what you want, and
submit the design to a good investment casting house for quotes. Tooling should
be "relatively" inexpensive for what you will need, but they will make short
runs that will allow you to get some samples very quickly. You can even make
SLA (stereo lithography) patterns that eliminate any hard tooling at all.
Investment casting produces parts that are near net shape and will require very
little machining. You can have them cast in just about any material you want,
including aluminum,
stainless steel, brass, bronze, etc. Exact reproductions can be cast using
this process right down to the pin and knuckle, but I doubt if the operating
characteristics will scale.
RE : Ed, I'm already aware of all of my options as you outlined above, but I do
appreciate all this input. Unfortunately, its all moot since it has nothing
whatsoever to do with my reply. Please re-read my earlier reply and follow the
context of it from the previous message that I was replying to.
Thank you.
John Degnan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ed Kozlowsky
Sanford, Maine
--- On Sat, 9/13/08, John Degnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: John Degnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} Which couplers?
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 6:54 PM
Well, if that is all a coupler needs to be - "excellent" - then shouldn't
SHS include Kadee couplers, too?
John Degnan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Kozlowsky" <soldado7264@ yahoo.com>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .com>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} Which couplers?
Well that's an easy one, since SHS makes an excellent scale coupler.
Ed Kozlowsky
Sanford, Maine
"Let's look at it this way: What type of coupler should SHS include with
their products?... .Ed L."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
