I've gone through a couple of glass gauges and decided to try making 
my own. I made an oversized measuring grid in Microsoft Paint, 
printed it with a laser printer and then used a copier to reduce it 
to the exact scale needed and print it on transparent film. I taped 
the film to top of a 2"x4" piece of glass.

Do you think that 2.5mm window or picture frame glass is flat enough 
for this?  I can post the .BMP file in the files area if anyone is 
interested (it is about 128KB).

Thanks,
Jon

You may be able to lap the glass plate flat yourself using fine grit papers
with water or oil.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

So, you are saying that a piece of window or picture glass is not 
going to be flat enough? If there isn't a cheap source of glass that 
is flat enough, to me, it isn't worth making a glass gauge. If there 
is glass that is flat enough, it is easy to make several in just a 
few minutes.

So far, the measurements I've taken so far with my two homemade 
glasses do match the measurements I took with the Babbit glass, but I 
don't know if I'm willing to trust them.

Also, I'm pretty happy with the gauge that I've printed out. It has 
markers for every 0.5mm and is much easier for me to read than to 
Babbit glass.

Keith Bradbury wrote:
> You may be able to lap the glass plate flat yourself
> using fine grit papers with water or oil.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "stencilmann" <jg_lloyd@s...> 
wrote:
> I've gone through a couple of glass gauges and decided to try 
making 
> my own. I made an oversized measuring grid in Microsoft Paint, 
> printed it with a laser printer and then used a copier to reduce it 
> to the exact scale needed and print it on transparent film. I taped 
> the film to top of a 2"x4" piece of glass.
> 
> Do you think that 2.5mm window or picture frame glass is flat 
enough 
> for this?  I can post the .BMP file in the files area if anyone is 
> interested (it is about 128KB).
> 
> Thanks,
> Jon

Hello Jon,
I 'm interested by your method, and be happy if you would post 
the.BMP on the file area.
Thanks,
Coolbaffle.  

I zipped the file down to just 4KB and included a little text file 
explaining the print and copy settings for reduction. The file is 
called GlassGage3.zip and is in the Files/Methods folder.

I have several BMP files, this one is the most "busy" but it makes it 
easy to line up the mouthpiece and take quick readings. If anyone has 
suggestions on how to clean it up, let me know.

Of course, if the glass isn't flat, this DIY thing is more trouble 
than its worth.

Jon

> I 'm interested by your method, and be happy if you would post 
> the.BMP on the file area.
> Thanks,
> Coolbaffle.

I do not know if standard glass plate is flat enough or not.  I was just
suggesting a solution.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Jon,
Window glass is made by a cheap process (float glass) and is very 
flat...many people use this as grinding plates. 

I have, in the past, used microscope slides for this type of gage; 
they are cheap, flat and precut. I currently am using the Babbitt 
gauge, as it is good enough and easier to see than anything else. 
Transparency film is not particularly uniform or repeatable.

jeff

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "stencilmann" <jg_lloyd@s...> 
wrote:
> I've gone through a couple of glass gauges and decided to try 
making 
> my own. I made an oversized measuring grid in Microsoft Paint, 
> printed it with a laser printer and then used a copier to reduce it 
> to the exact scale needed and print it on transparent film. I taped 
> the film to top of a 2"x4" piece of glass.
> 
> Do you think that 2.5mm window or picture frame glass is flat 
enough 
> for this?  I can post the .BMP file in the files area if anyone is 
> interested (it is about 128KB).
> 
> Thanks,
> Jon

Also,
If you are placing the mouthpiece against the bottom of the glass and 
have the scale taped to the top, you have to be careful of parallax 
errors...it is best to have the mouthpiece placed directly against 
the scale.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Rosner" <sjrosner@y...> 
wrote:
> Jon,
> Window glass is made by a cheap process (float glass) and is very 
> flat...many people use this as grinding plates. 
> 
> I have, in the past, used microscope slides for this type of gage; 
> they are cheap, flat and precut. I currently am using the Babbitt 
> gauge, as it is good enough and easier to see than anything else. 
> Transparency film is not particularly uniform or repeatable.
> 
> jeff
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "stencilmann" 
<jg_lloyd@s...> 
> wrote:
> > I've gone through a couple of glass gauges and decided to try 
> making 
> > my own. I made an oversized measuring grid in Microsoft Paint, 
> > printed it with a laser printer and then used a copier to reduce 
it 
> > to the exact scale needed and print it on transparent film. I 
taped 
> > the film to top of a 2"x4" piece of glass.
> > 
> > Do you think that 2.5mm window or picture frame glass is flat 
> enough 
> > for this?  I can post the .BMP file in the files area if anyone 
is 
> > interested (it is about 128KB).
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jon

Jeff,
Your right about the errors reading through the glass, and the 
tranparency film won't stand up to the scraping of the feelers. I'm 
just glad I now have some backups until I get a new Babbit glass to 
replace the one that was damaged.

Thanks for the info on window glass. That's nice to know. AAMOF, I've 
been using a 8"x10" piece of picture glass that is a 6mm thick for 
lapping. I bought 4 of these picture frames at the local dollar store.

BTW, the dollar store often carries some good stuff for mouthpiece 
work. I also bought a pack of 8 sapphire nail files for $1. Great for 
grinding down epoxy baffles without fouling up files or messing with 
sand paper.

Thanks again,
Jon

Jeff Rosner wrote:
> If you are placing the mouthpiece against the bottom of the
> glass and have the scale taped to the top, you have to be
> careful of parallax errors...

> > Window glass is made by a cheap process (float glass) and is very 
> > flat...many people use this as grinding plates. 
> > 

The marks MUST be on the side of the glass against the facing.  
Otherwise you have "parallax error".  That is, as you move your eye in 
relation to the work, the reading changes.

Paul



stencilmann wrote:

> I've gone through a couple of glass gauges and decided to try making
> my own. I made an oversized measuring grid in Microsoft Paint,
> printed it with a laser printer and then used a copier to reduce it
> to the exact scale needed and print it on transparent film. I taped
> the film to top of a 2"x4" piece of glass.
>
> Do you think that 2.5mm window or picture frame glass is flat enough
> for this?  I can post the .BMP file in the files area if anyone is
> interested (it is about 128KB).
>
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
>
>
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see 
> the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG9kte5je/M)8184.5022502.6152625.3001176/D=grplch/S05032198:HM/EXP87573831/A!64339/R=0/SIGe2d64in/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso`183348> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

With the Babbitt gage, I always have the etched scale marks facing me away
from the mouthpiece.  I never thought to flip it around since the numbers
on the scle would read backwards.  Plus the etched lines would be places
for the feelers to get hung up on.  I think a smooth surface towards the
facing is a better strategy.  It has served me well.  


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 
<kwbradbury@y...> wrote:
> With the Babbitt gage, I always have the etched scale marks facing 
me away
> from the mouthpiece.  I never thought to flip it around since the 
numbers
> on the scle would read backwards.  Plus the etched lines would be 
places
> for the feelers to get hung up on.  I think a smooth surface 
towards the
> facing is a better strategy.  It has served me well.  
> 

I was way off.  Now that I'm back to my workbench I see that the 
Babbitt gauge has the scale and numbers lightly etched to the side 
that faces the mouthpiece.  The numbers are reversed so they read 
correctly through the glass. 

I'm curious to know what I might be missing (or not missing) by not 
using a babbit glass gauge.  I just use my calipers to measure the 
distance on a plain flat glass. As a bonus I just work in straight mm 
and don't need to think about the 2mm/mark on the babbit glass 
(unless I'm using numbers from someone else).

I think the main thing you are missing is speed and conveniance.  With a
good technique, you probably can get good results with either method.  I
hold the glass gauge on the mouthpiece with one hand and the feeler flat
against the glass with my other one.  I would need a third hand to grab a
caliper or I would need to let go of the feeler.  If it flops against the
mouthpiece the reading changes slightly.  It is also easy to see uneven
facings when the feeler is titled vs the lines etched in the Babbitt gauge.
 I record a left and right side measurement to track my progress.  


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

In the last couple of weeks I have found that I prefer using a flat 
glass rather than the Babbit glass gauge. I put a homemade gauge 
between the flat glass and a flat tabletop. Then I hold the 
mouthpiece down on the glass and slide in the feeler. It does take  
good lighting and proper angle to read the gauge through the glass.  
Also, you end up reading the gauge at the edge of the rails rather 
than directly under them. For me, reading the gauge hasn't been a 
problem although it takes some time to get used to it.

The advantages the I find with this method are that it is less tiring 
on the hands, it is easier to position the mouthpiece on the glass, 
dropping the mouthpiece and glass isn't an issue, the gauge layout 
can be easily changed, and  it is easy to switch to a new glass if it 
breaks or becomes scratched.

I've started printing out charts for my favorite facing curves on 
8.5"x11" sheets of paper in landscape mode. Then I tape a gauge on 
the right side of the paper. All I have to do to work on a piece is 
pull the chart from my binder, place a 8"x10" picture glass over it 
and start working.

Another thing that has helped is using two self-adhesive rubber feet 
as "bumbers" on the glass at each side of the mouthpiece to help keep 
it in place, at least from sliding side to side. It takes a couple of 
minutes to get the feet into position but it makes it much less 
tedious to line the mouthpiece up with the gauge.

For now, I'm going to stick with this unless I find a problem with it.

Jon

Keith Bradbury wrote:
> I think the main thing you are missing is speed and
> conveniance. With a good technique, you probably can get
> good results with either method.  I hold the glass gauge
> on the mouthpiece with one hand and the feeler flat
> against the glass with my other one.

One thing you can do to make reading more precise is to place the gauge on a mirror and put the glass on top of that. It thus becomes easy to eliminate parallax by making sure that the feeler is aligned with its reflection when you read the gauge--that way you can make sure that you are not getting a false reading based on your reading at an angle through the glass. The same principle is used in many precision mechanical dial readouts, which have a mirrored strip just underneath the scale.

I don't know if it is really worth it in this case, but it should work.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: stencilmann 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:48 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Babbitt Gauge vs Flat Glass and Calipers


  In the last couple of weeks I have found that I prefer using a flat 
  glass rather than the Babbit glass gauge. I put a homemade gauge 
  between the flat glass and a flat tabletop. Then I hold the 
  mouthpiece down on the glass and slide in the feeler. It does take  
  good lighting and proper angle to read the gauge through the glass.  
  Also, you end up reading the gauge at the edge of the rails rather 
  than directly under them. For me, reading the gauge hasn't been a 
  problem although it takes some time to get used to it.

  The advantages the I find with this method are that it is less tiring 
  on the hands, it is easier to position the mouthpiece on the glass, 
  dropping the mouthpiece and glass isn't an issue, the gauge layout 
  can be easily changed, and  it is easy to switch to a new glass if it 
  breaks or becomes scratched.

  I've started printing out charts for my favorite facing curves on 
  8.5"x11" sheets of paper in landscape mode. Then I tape a gauge on 
  the right side of the paper. All I have to do to work on a piece is 
  pull the chart from my binder, place a 8"x10" picture glass over it 
  and start working.

  Another thing that has helped is using two self-adhesive rubber feet 
  as "bumbers" on the glass at each side of the mouthpiece to help keep 
  it in place, at least from sliding side to side. It takes a couple of 
  minutes to get the feet into position but it makes it much less 
  tedious to line the mouthpiece up with the gauge.

  For now, I'm going to stick with this unless I find a problem with it.

  Jon

  Keith Bradbury wrote:
  > I think the main thing you are missing is speed and
  > conveniance. With a good technique, you probably can get
  > good results with either method.  I hold the glass gauge
  > on the mouthpiece with one hand and the feeler flat
  > against the glass with my other one.



  Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

  Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.

  To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

Well the main reason I don't use the Babbit glass is that I don't 
have one and I get email failure when I try to contact them.  I 
suppose I'm going to have to use the old fashioned way and phone 
them?  Or does anyone here have a good source for the glass gauges?

I did a search of our archives on "Glass Gauge" and actually found 
some good hits.  See post 1966.  Prices probably are still current.

I had better luck phoning them for a quote then I mailed them a 
letter and check.  I posted my letter in the files section but the 
above info is more current.