Line Ends
Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 14 of 14 known posts recovered
Iskandar Taib · Oct 21, 2004 12:11 AM
#1 sourceBen
Edit - Spelling!
Ooooh...sorry...couldn't resist. 
Looks like your modified needle nose do a great job.
George
Edit: Sorry, the answer was already there.
jehold66203 · Oct 21, 2004 08:58 AM
#5 sourceI've been wrapping both sides of the loop out and around the tube to securely lock the loop from slipping. I'll have to try the tube crushing idea. It will make the final termination smaller diameter and neater.
Old Sourdough · Oct 21, 2004 05:18 PM
#7 source"...I did a lot of tests and found out that on .015 cable only through the tubbing two times, you could use a sleave only .025" long .0625" copper tubbing and the cable will break..."
======================================================================
Carl,
I think the sleeve length you describe (0.025") is not an adequate length nor it that figure consistent with your pictures. 0.025"=1/40th inch. Perhaps you meant 0.250" (1/4"), although that seems a bit short as well, again judging from your pictures.
As your swaged connections look good, this message is not a criticism. It is only to clear up a bit of confusion for me.
>
>"...I did a lot of tests and found out that on .015 cable
>only through the tubbing two times, you could use a sleave
>only .025" long .0625" copper tubbing and the cable will
>break..."
>======================================================================
>Carl,
>
>I think the sleeve length you describe (0.025") is not an
>adequate length nor it that figure consistent with your
>pictures. 0.025"=1/40th inch. Perhaps you meant 0.250"
>(1/4"), although that seems a bit short as well, again
>judging from your pictures.
>
>As your swaged connections look good, this message is not a
>criticism. It is only to clear up a bit of confusion for
>me.
Copied from Carl's message:
"I did a lot of tests and found out that on .015 cable only through the tubbing two times, you could use a sleave only .250" long .0625" copper tubbing and the cable will break and the sleave will not slip"
So somehow I think you misread .250" as .0250". He did indeed mean 0.250", since that's what he said. Perhaps he edited the message to correct this, but as it stands Carl's .250" dimension seems fine...
If you copied his message verbatim, then clearly he corrected his mistake.
Andy
Edit: Carl's correction showed up just after I wrote this...