Why Am I A VAM Enthusiast?

Good grief Remmy, I am not accusing you guys of that claim. I do however accuse other of it.
I feel the need to take my leave from here, at least for a while, but I know that you guys visit Site X frequently, and since clashing seems to be the main focus and cause of everything, I would be remiss if I did not equip you with a wee bit of clashing information so you will know more than they do, and truly, that won't take much.

Keep in mind that the main duty of the press operator was to keep the planchet tube from running empty. The tube held 100 planchets, so at the rate of 80-90 strikes per minute, it was a full time job in itself. The simultaneous duty of the press operator was to keep one foot at the ready over the clutch pedal to stop the press from continued striking if a malfunction were to occur.

Do you guys remember when you were boys running around with your BB guns shooting at kitty cats, sparrows, and other innocent animals? Sure you do....you would fill your gun tube with BBs and shoot til the BBs were all gone. How did you know that they were all gone? You pulled the trigger and nothing came out. As it is with a clash, no more planchets, no more coins dropping from the press, only clashes. Don't let that feed tube run out of planchets......it 'might' be hard on the dies, (but then, maybe not)....here's why:

What is considered a malfunction? A clash, you might think, as you have no doubt been schooled by the experts. Negative......clashing is a 'very' common event. VERY common. (I felt that this needed to be repeated). What is the ratio of clashed dies versus unclashed dies? Consider this: Why are the clash marks on some coins more pronounced than on other coins? Die wear you say....correct, but only partially. The other correct answer is die placement in the press. Just as all of the things that can be factors (that I partially mentioned in my last post) all interact with each other, and become combined variables in the cause and effect of those marks on your coins, so too is press and die set up.

How do you set up the dies in the press? How do you adjust the dies? How do you align the dies? How do you cause a weaker strike? How do you avoid clash? This is all very simple, I will make it short for you guys step by step in exact order (this cannot be accomplished out of order):

1.) Place the lower die in the die stake.
2.) Rotate manually the flywheel to bring the die field flush with the top of the collar that surrounds it. (This is coin eject position).
3.) Rotate the die until the setscrew in the stake body aligns with the flat on the die body.
4.) Tighten said setscrew.
5.) Rotate manually the flywheel until the lower die is now at maximum recess in the collar. (This is strike position).
6.) Place the upper die in the die stake, and allow the die face to rest upon the lower die face.
7.) Rotate the die until the die flat aligns with the setscrew in the die stake.
8.) Tighten the setscrew.

The dies are now aligned and set firmly in place simply by use of the setscrew/ dieflat setup.

To avoid clashes as well as cause a weaker strike, loosen the upper die setscrew, place a 1/32" (or any such thickness of your choosing) spacer between the two die faces. Retighten setscrew. Rotate manually the flywheel in either direction. Remove spacer.

Got it? Now you know something the 'experts' don't.

It is my belief that nearly all dies are clashed, but the physical make up of the particular dies coupled with the adjustment of those same dies at clash provide differing results than will be achieved on different sets. I feel that most clashes are undetectable visually. Clashes do not occur with the full force of a strike as the upper die travel is limited by the setscrew. There are other methods of adjusting upper die travel used by maintenance technicians, but this would be the most common used by the operator.

Okay take all of that and think about it, and then think again if you still feel that clashes were uncontrollable, violent mishaps that scared the doo-doo out of the press operators like I was told over at Site-X. Rethink all that we have said in this thread. Reread that which I had written earlier, as it seems as though some of you did not understand it.

Terry, all of the questions that you asked earlier, I have already answered elsewhere in this thread.

Later Dudes,
Lou

Zee, That is one of the best explanations I have ever heard. It is simple and to the point. Mint workers where not rocket scientists, and ease of set up would be what " upper management would what"

Thanks Russ. Nice for me to know who is interested in this type of thing. Intuition told me that you might be, as I knew Dave was.
Dave, the full length item that you mentioned will be done, but I am not sure when. It would be quite dry and really wouldn't make much sense without illustration though. A couple of CU folks have made similar orders and maybe one will help out. I will have to regain the prints to accomplish that also.
And yes, you were right Dave, (obviously), and so was I, (obviously). As promised: THANK YOU

Same here Remmy, same here.

Yes, you've got it Dave. Rotation, (despite the fact that the die faces are virtually flat) would change the rendezvous of the device drop offs, and subsequently cause greater impact at certain drop off intersections.

Die placement could be done either visually or by feel; operator's preference. Logic tells me that the setscrew (which I have never seen by the way) would be flat at business end. If it were otherwise, there would be less surface contact at the die flat. Points can break, a broken point would leave a gap between screw and flat; loose die, rotation or worse.

Being flat at contact end, I can only imagine, the the rotation of the setscrew 'could' cause a bite or grab of the flat and bring the entire die 'slightly' downward, unless the threads were reversed (left handed), in which case the bite might cause an upward tendency of the die (but I have no reason to believe that was the case).

The setscrew was merely the anchor, a means to prevent rotation as well as upward and downward movement of the die in the stake (cup). Upper die placement is what actually controls depth of clash and strike.

The TPGs call the phenomena 'rotated reverse', but I would think they should reconsider which die actually was more likely to rotate. Not that it really matters, (as the effect is the same).

It seems as though Don is trying to put a little distance between CU and Dan. Twelve threads locked on the same subject. Interesting that it went on 'this' long. He should have known that pit bulls never release until it is too late.