Hell no. You didn't ask that. You just asked if anyone had one laying
around. I do. :-)
Seriously, bought it on ebay ($175, as I recall)----no weights, no anvils,
no braille, with damaged lenses on the meter. new lenses made, a series of
anvils made from 17-4 PH stainless, heat treated to H 900, plus a new set of
stainless weights were made. Seems to be well calibrated for the C scale
when checked with standards. I'm quite pleased with it. bought the
braille form ebay, and for only $40. Shipped to me from Taiwan. Good
Ive only got one..a bounce tester. Wanna borrow it?
"If thy pride is sorely vexed when others disparage your offering, be
as lamb's wool is to cold rain and the Gore-tex of Odin's raiment
is to gullshit in the gale, for thy angst shall vex them not at
all. Yea, they shall scorn thee all the more. Rejoice in
sharing what you have to share without expectation of adoration,
knowing that sharing your treasure does not diminish your treasure
but enriches it."
- Onni 1:33
That's why I bought the old Wilson. They're quite proud of those things when
they're new. I always wanted one, but couldn't justify the cost.
Getting one cheaply from ebay made it a reasonable acquisition. I didn't
mind the rebuild, and had more than enough material on hand to make the
components. Truth be known, it was a fun job. I rarely comment on
machining being fun. The shine went off that for me years ago.
Only a couple weeks ago, I saw one that someone had made. It was based on
an arbor press and used a dial indicator and appropriate weights, along with
a commercial indentor and test blocks for calibration. It didn't look too
difficult to build and the owner claimed it to be fairly accurate. If you
are interested, I'll try to track down the person who built it...
According to Harold and Susan Vordos :
He's not the only one to have one but not to be willing to let
it go. I've actually got two -- a "King" (from King of Prussia PA) with
a digital readout, and an "Ames" portable one. The King looks somewhat
like a sewing machine with a red crinkle finish paintjob. :-)
Both came from eBay auctions, the King second, as it had the
ability to measure the superficial scales as well as the normal ones.
And both worked as they came from eBay.
George is one of the top Physicists on the globe, I love him for his wit and
humility. However, time flies when we meet or are on the phone and we both
get behind...it's unavoidable. I don't know why he wastes time with me, I'm
I have been thinking of making (or rather applying, for there is no
actual "making" involved) my own hardness tester for a cost of something
This is how I figure:
IIRC, at least one of the different hardness tests is designed around
measuring the size of the impression made by a sphere, (help me with
their names please).
Instead of applying a precise force for a precise length of time, my
idea is that if I have a piece of steel with known hardness, and another
that is unknown, I put them both in a vise with a ball bearing between
them. Then squeeze hard. Now the pieces obviously get indented with the
same force and for the same length of time.
So I have get impressions, one in the unknown material, and one in the
known. Now I reason that the relative sizes of the impressions must
surely be proportional to the relative hardnesses of the materials.
Do you think this idea would work as I think it might? If it does, what
should I measure, the areas or the diameters of the circular indents?
In a sense, that's how a hardness tester works, but in the case of the
Wilson, it measures the depth of penetration, not the diameter.
Yeah, your idea would work, but I have serious doubts about the ability to
read the results and translate them to useful information with a reliable
degree of precision.
Well, I was thinking of buying a loupe with a scale, the kind
seamstresses use to count threads, to measure the diameters of the
indentations but perhaps you are right, and it would still be too hard
to see the exact edge.
Also, since you say it is the depth of penetration that's important,
perhaps I should measure that instead. I imagine it would go like this:
1. Measure the thickness of the unknown material before testing with a
micrometer. Call the result U1.
2. Take the same measure of the reference material. Call the result of
that measure R1.
3. Press together in vise.
4. Measure the diameter of ball bearing. Call that B. (Here I assume
that it won't be deformed, but in real life I'd have to verify that)
5. Leave the ball bearing in the indentation it made during the test and
measure the combined thickness of the unknown material and the ball
bearing (sitting in the little pit it made) with the same micrometer.
Call that combined measure Cu.
6. Do the same with the ball bearing and the reference material. Call
that combined measure Cr.
7. Calculate the depth of penetration in the unknown material,
8. Calculate the depth of penetration in the reference material,
9. The ratio of the hardnesses would then be Hu/Hr=Pu/Pr, so the unknown
hardness would be Hu=Hr*Pu/Pr
All of the above assumes there is a linear relation between hardness and
depth of penetration, which I somehow doubt, because of the spherical
shape of the ball bearing. In real life, if one was determined to get
some accuracy out of this method, I guess one could experimentally
produce some tables of factors to multiply with, or perhaps it could be
Yet, in spite of all this, I still have this image in my mind from
reading about hardness testing with a sphere long ago, that what should
actually be measured was the size of the indentation, either its area or
Well, luckily, I don't really need to measure any hardness, at least not
A-ha! I knew I was on to something! Got to google for kroop now. And
perhaps I can get by with a loupe and a steel scale instead of a fancy
microscope. I like doing things as simply as possible. Thanks for the
Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away - Antoine de Saint-Exupery