When Abrasha put fingers to keys it was 9/17/06 10:52 AM...

Carl wrote:
When lemel_man put fingers to keys it was 9/15/06 4:17 AM...

....
Basically, when you roll a wire or strip the width increase depends on
the ratio of the previous width to thickness. The bigger the ratio the
smaller the increase, but its not linear. I worked out some sort of
correlation between the ratio and percentage increase and found I could
get pretty accurate results, especially for ratios smaller than about
10:1. Based on that work, I would say that 1.2mm square wire rolled down
to 0.1mm would end up close to 4mm wide.
For what its worth, my calculations suggest that 2.2mm square wire
rolled to 0.1mm would end up around 10mm wide. But as said above, the
accuracy at a ratio of 100:1 is not good. With more work it could
probably be improved, but in my case its just not worth it.

Hmmm...

http://c-24-63-36-176.hsd1.ma.comcas...llingChart.gif

Add some more points and it could be useful, Yes?

I could not figure out how to read that graph.

It shows the four data points that lemel_man gave. The blue lines
connect the corresponding pairs (square and flattened to 0.1mm). The
grey line just marks the 1:1 ratio of height to width.

I bet that if measurements are taken throughout the rolling process that
those lines turn into curves. Having those curves would be helpful when
you aren't starting from square stock. Seems to me.

It also seems that it's important to note the diameter of the rollers.
Yes? No? The degree of curvature certainly makes a difference on a
hammer face. thinking... well, OK, the practical difference between
2,3,and 4 inch rollers is probably very small.


There has _got_ to be something like this out there in the literature.

I have a table in one of my German training books, that has a chart that lists
the dimensions of rectangular wire you end up with from on a number of
dimensions of square wire as starting points.

Hmmm... do they mention roller diameters?

- CW