Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Models / December 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Granite Placemats as Surface Plates

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
pentagrid@yahoo.com - 29 Dec 2008 21:28 GMT
Having recently aquired a 6" optical flat I  thought it would be
interesting to checkout the granite placemats and chopping boards
now  stocked by the supermarkets. These are 15 to  20mm thick and
small enough and light enough  to be kept in a drawer when not in
use.

    Although the working surface is polished, it is only
polished sufficiently to give a shine. There's severe "orange
peel" surface  disturbance - not good enough for optical
interferometry checks. However the surface is ideal for the
capillary/surface tension method.

http://xs434.xs.to/xs434/08011/granite_1a910.jpg

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/granite_1b902.jpg

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/granite_2a522.jpg

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/granite_2b880.jpg

  Show the test results on two 15mm thick  placemats. The 6"
flat was supported at the top end with an 0.005" shim to give an
airgap  slope of about 5/6000. The equal thickness  capillary
edge displays a 6000/5 amplification  of the flatness error -
approx 1" per 0.001"  Each plate was tested at 0deg and 90deg and
showed errors of less than 0.0004".

 The tests were repeated on a 300 x 400 x 15mm  chopping board.

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/chop_board_0.005925.jpg

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/chop_board90_0.005344.jpg

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/chop_board_0.001674.jpg

  The first two show the 0deg and 90deg  results The third is a
repeat of the 90deg  result but with an 0.001" shim.

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/plglass_0.001_x_2in878.jpg

  Is the result using an 0.001" slope on a 12" length of 2" x
1/2" plate glass (ex shop window display  shelf)

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/splatemeths0.005256.jpg

 Is an 0.005" slope test on a 12" x 18"  surface plate. Although
the lower faint capillary edge is fairly visible by eye, the
contrast is too low for satisfactory  photography. Both Meths and
ispropanol  (rubbing alcohol) gave similar results but a marking
out fluid which appears to be heavily  dyed alcohol gave
excellent contrast. The snag  is that the higher viscosity
results in a long  settling time.

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/splatemkgbu0.005571.jpg

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/splate0.001start328.jpg

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08011/splate0.001finish758.jpg

  The fist JPG is an 0.005" slope test. The second shows the
beginning of an 0.001" slope test. the third is the result
1/2hour later. The results show up the comparative roughness of a
ground and scraped surface.

                Jim
Brian Reay - 30 Dec 2008 07:14 GMT
> Having recently aquired a 6" optical flat I  thought it would be
> interesting to checkout the granite placemats and chopping boards
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> interferometry checks. However the surface is ideal for the
> capillary/surface tension method.

<snipped for brevity>

Interesting post but, while I think I understand the basic idea, I'm not
sure how you actually convert your observations to measurements.

I'm assuming that, for a given fluid, a sloping "gap" would give a straight
line at the point were the "gap" gets too large to "hold" the fluid via
capillary/surface tension. If the boundary is not straight it means the
surfaces are not "flat".  Is that correct, please?

As regards the measurements, do you do some trig to convert the deviations
of the line to a local measurement?

TIA

Brian
pentagrid@yahoo.com - 30 Dec 2008 10:14 GMT
>> Having recently aquired a 6" optical flat I  thought it would be
>> interesting to checkout the granite placemats and chopping boards
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
>Brian

 Surface tension of the liquid in the sloping gap ensures that
the liquid/air boundary is of uniform thickness.

 If both surfaces are truly flat, this boundary is a straight
line at 90deg to the slope angle.

 If either surface has a flatness error the boundary moves to
maintain its uniform thickness.

 Since it is moving in a sloping airgap the change in thickness
is multiplied by the inverse of the gradient of the slope angle -
For a 1 in 1000 gradient the boundary movement is 1000 times the
local change in gap thickness.

The deviation from a straight line is a direct readout of the
flatness error adjacent to that line. Measurements can be made
along lines higher up or lower down by choice of the amount of
liquid.

                         Jim
Brian Reay - 30 Dec 2008 10:16 GMT
>  Surface tension of the liquid in the sloping gap ensures that
> the liquid/air boundary is of uniform thickness.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> along lines higher up or lower down by choice of the amount of
> liquid.

Thank you, sounds much as I had deduced.

Brian
Andrew Mawson - 30 Dec 2008 10:24 GMT
> >> Having recently aquired a 6" optical flat I  thought it would be
> >> interesting to checkout the granite placemats and chopping boards
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
>                           Jim

Jim,

How does surface finish and cleanness affect the result? I seem to
remember an early chemistry lesson where the difference between
fingered microscope slides and cleaned ones was demonstrated using a
simillar wedge capillary gap, with the greasy one being ragged.

AWEM
pentagrid@yahoo.com - 30 Dec 2008 13:28 GMT
><pentagrid@yahoo.com> wrote in message
SNIP

>>   Surface tension of the liquid in the sloping gap ensures that
>> the liquid/air boundary is of uniform thickness.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
>AWEM

For accurate results both surfaces need  to be really clean AND
free from dust particles. Both surfaces were first wiped down
with commercial isopropanol and a fresh paper towel.

Airborne dust particles were avoided by first covering the clean
test surface with a fresh paper towel and the placing the flat on
top of the towel. When the paper towel is slowly withdrawn it
carries away any stray particles that may have settled on either
surface. After the towel is withdrawn the flat is slightly raised
and the spacer shim inserted.

 Dust particles generate easily identified sharp spikes on the
boundary.  Inadequately clean surfaces show up as improbable non
wetted areas. This shows up well in the final measurements on the
cast iron surface plate where complete cleaning is impossible.

 Traditionally methylated spirits is used for these tests. I
changed to isopropanol because my particular bottle of methylated
spirit left a slight greasy film behind when it evaporated. This
wasn't a problem during the test but it was nuisance to clean it
off the flat before the next test.

 Marking out fluid gives an exceptionaly visible result but is
both messy and a nuisance to cleanup. For rough work, using a
steeper gradient, a handful of identical small steel balls is
less accurate but more convenient.

                                  Jim
Austin Shackles - 30 Dec 2008 14:30 GMT
>SNIP

and more SNIP.

So, what was your conclusion?  Can we go out and buy granite chopping boards
as surface plates?

They'd be more use than the intended purpose.  I see no point in a chopping
surface which is only going to blunt my nice, sharp knife.
Signature

Austin Shackles.  www.ddol-las.net  my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy!  Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\  
  >>  http://www.schlockmercenary.com/  <<      \  ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.