Here is the latest HPRS head which is now available from CAT, and an Alligator head is upcoming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU2kWJ_RFUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU2kWJ_RFUo
Last edited:
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
New MDS Blind Rivet puller head
- Thread starter ROTARY7
- Start date
Follow-thru!
Nice work, Mark. If I were building a -12, I'd get this in a heartbeat.
I'm really impressed that since Oshkosh, you've followed through on your promise to develop multiple heads which can share the same intensifier. The slight premium your system commands seems worth it even if a builder only owns one head, but with multiple heads, your system looks to actually be more cost-effective than a whole mess of independent tools, and better engineered to boot.
It's nice to see the spirit of experimental aircraft-building expand to experimental tool-building as well. My order with Cleaveland will be queued up soon!
--Stephen
Nice work, Mark. If I were building a -12, I'd get this in a heartbeat.
I'm really impressed that since Oshkosh, you've followed through on your promise to develop multiple heads which can share the same intensifier. The slight premium your system commands seems worth it even if a builder only owns one head, but with multiple heads, your system looks to actually be more cost-effective than a whole mess of independent tools, and better engineered to boot.
It's nice to see the spirit of experimental aircraft-building expand to experimental tool-building as well. My order with Cleaveland will be queued up soon!
--Stephen
Last edited:
Thanks Stephen.
I've had many long nights progressing the HPRS as my resources are finite. I can well understand if many people out there question if the system will live up to the promise, in this age of over-promotion and under-delivery. I hope the addition of this puller head acts to address this concern.
As you mention, my system is not inexpensive, largely due to the fact that making units which are smaller, lighter and more versatile is more involved than a pneumatic only system. In time I believe many more will see the advantages of the system.
I've had many long nights progressing the HPRS as my resources are finite. I can well understand if many people out there question if the system will live up to the promise, in this age of over-promotion and under-delivery. I hope the addition of this puller head acts to address this concern.
As you mention, my system is not inexpensive, largely due to the fact that making units which are smaller, lighter and more versatile is more involved than a pneumatic only system. In time I believe many more will see the advantages of the system.
clevtool
Well Known Member
Mark is sure keeping me on my toes!
I now have the tool available on our website at: http://www.cleavelandtoolstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=SHPP3150
.
I now have the tool available on our website at: http://www.cleavelandtoolstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=SHPP3150
.
david.perl
Well Known Member
first hand feedback on MDS squeezer
Ive just received my squeezer and head for the DRDT2 frame - I?ve just started building a 7 and have only used an old school squeezer once. I could see working with a 6 pound lump was going to be a PITA. The MDS squeezer is a work of art and its functionality so much easier. I?ve yet to test the head for the frame as I?m waiting to get my new compressor installed.
Another reason i went with this apart from being an early adopter is the excellent support i have received from Mark at MDS and Mike @ Cleveland - both have been brilliant.
Infact I?m so pleased I?m going to order the rivet puller head as well as i just know it?s going to make the build so much easier
I?m in the UK and no way connected to either company - just appreciate good quality tools and am happy to praise when it is due.
Ive just received my squeezer and head for the DRDT2 frame - I?ve just started building a 7 and have only used an old school squeezer once. I could see working with a 6 pound lump was going to be a PITA. The MDS squeezer is a work of art and its functionality so much easier. I?ve yet to test the head for the frame as I?m waiting to get my new compressor installed.
Another reason i went with this apart from being an early adopter is the excellent support i have received from Mark at MDS and Mike @ Cleveland - both have been brilliant.
Infact I?m so pleased I?m going to order the rivet puller head as well as i just know it?s going to make the build so much easier
I?m in the UK and no way connected to either company - just appreciate good quality tools and am happy to praise when it is due.
Hi Diamond,
Answers to your questions:
1. The intensifier is fairly quick, but in reality it is the entire system not just the intensifier which comes into play. Cycle time depends slightly on the forming head used, but is about a second or so. I estimate it is about 25% slower than a pneumatic only squeezer. This is due to the fact that in addition to the air being compressed, a fluid is being moved along the flexible line (viscosity). The intensifier air piston (large diameter portion of the unit) is double acting, meaning the fluid is sucked back during retraction, not just slowly returned via the spring in the forming head. The fluid volumetric displacement is approximately .50 cu. in., which is not that much. If you are going for all out speed, it will lose out to a pnuematic only unit, or to an air/oil unit which has no line (powered puller). As I have said many times, the lightweight of the heads make up for the speed differential, in that you aren't holding an extra 3-4 lbs of mass for hours on end (read: less fatigue). Also, many have commented on how well the unit can be feathered (controlled) by slightly depressing the foot valve to an intermediate position. This is MUCH harder to do with a pneumatic unit. I am referring especially to a squeezer operation, not a pulling operation.
2. Very low noise. The unit comes with a muffler, and it is no more noisy than any other unit out there. In the video (link on first post) you are hearing the pop (fracture) of the stem of the Cherrymax rivet.
3. There is low safety concern with 3K psi of oil pressure. This is a common misconception with hydraulic pressure. If it were AIR PRESSURE it would be a very serious concern. Why the difference? Air is a compressible fluid, and when things let go, the rush of air can create schrapnel. Think of an exploding air cylinder. For a liquid, when there is a crack, the pressure relieves since the volume goes infinite. I work for a major U.S. jet engine maker (pick one), and we use hydraulic pressure (water) to safely check for leaks in aircraft tubing/ducting systems. Yes, there are stories of aircraft systems operating at high pressure (5-6k) doing serious injury, but this is due to a sustaining pump which may be soaking up a few hundred HP and a huge resevoir supplying the pump. The stories (with some being true) involve a pinhole leak in a hydraulic line acting like a waterjet and cutting a finger off or the like. As I said, my MAX fluid displacement is .5 cu. in. It could make a mess and that's about it.
In addition to David Perl's candid input on this thread, I can supply other users' input on request. You could contact them direct. So far everyone has been happy with the system.
Hope this helps.
Answers to your questions:
1. The intensifier is fairly quick, but in reality it is the entire system not just the intensifier which comes into play. Cycle time depends slightly on the forming head used, but is about a second or so. I estimate it is about 25% slower than a pneumatic only squeezer. This is due to the fact that in addition to the air being compressed, a fluid is being moved along the flexible line (viscosity). The intensifier air piston (large diameter portion of the unit) is double acting, meaning the fluid is sucked back during retraction, not just slowly returned via the spring in the forming head. The fluid volumetric displacement is approximately .50 cu. in., which is not that much. If you are going for all out speed, it will lose out to a pnuematic only unit, or to an air/oil unit which has no line (powered puller). As I have said many times, the lightweight of the heads make up for the speed differential, in that you aren't holding an extra 3-4 lbs of mass for hours on end (read: less fatigue). Also, many have commented on how well the unit can be feathered (controlled) by slightly depressing the foot valve to an intermediate position. This is MUCH harder to do with a pneumatic unit. I am referring especially to a squeezer operation, not a pulling operation.
2. Very low noise. The unit comes with a muffler, and it is no more noisy than any other unit out there. In the video (link on first post) you are hearing the pop (fracture) of the stem of the Cherrymax rivet.
3. There is low safety concern with 3K psi of oil pressure. This is a common misconception with hydraulic pressure. If it were AIR PRESSURE it would be a very serious concern. Why the difference? Air is a compressible fluid, and when things let go, the rush of air can create schrapnel. Think of an exploding air cylinder. For a liquid, when there is a crack, the pressure relieves since the volume goes infinite. I work for a major U.S. jet engine maker (pick one), and we use hydraulic pressure (water) to safely check for leaks in aircraft tubing/ducting systems. Yes, there are stories of aircraft systems operating at high pressure (5-6k) doing serious injury, but this is due to a sustaining pump which may be soaking up a few hundred HP and a huge resevoir supplying the pump. The stories (with some being true) involve a pinhole leak in a hydraulic line acting like a waterjet and cutting a finger off or the like. As I said, my MAX fluid displacement is .5 cu. in. It could make a mess and that's about it.
In addition to David Perl's candid input on this thread, I can supply other users' input on request. You could contact them direct. So far everyone has been happy with the system.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
Thanks for the excellent explanation.
So the head is obviously smaller and lighter than a conventional pneumatic squeezer, but you're also lifting a certain amount of the the hose as well. How does the weight of the oil-filled hose compare to an air-filled hose on a conventional squeezer?
So the head is obviously smaller and lighter than a conventional pneumatic squeezer, but you're also lifting a certain amount of the the hose as well. How does the weight of the oil-filled hose compare to an air-filled hose on a conventional squeezer?
I would say it is no heavier than an air hose, and probably more supple. Both of these attributes are due to the smaller diameter of the braided hose, versus the diameter of a standard air hose. The fluid contained within the 6' hydraulic hose, which has an I.D. of .188", is negligable, about 2.0 cu. in. or 1.1 oz. This is about .05 lbm, which is like nothing. The hose may weigh about a 1 pound, but again it is no more than an air hose even with the fluid.
Diamond,
Thank you for the valid questions. Your last question has prompted me to weigh an air hose and one of my hydraulic hoses, for comparison.
My philosophy with my system is that I openly explain it, both pros and any cons. I believe there are far more pros than cons, otherwise I would not have put all the effort into the system. But for example, if someone is interested in all out speed, say for a table mounted rivet squeezer for small brackets, and has no interest in other using other forming heads, a pneumatic squeezer may be best. In this example case, for a pneumatic squeezer mounted to a stand weight and size would not be an issue.
I also don't claim to be perfect with my product, and it will continually refine over time. What I do want to emphasize is that this product, with all the development involved is not a "get in quick and make a buck, then bail out" product. What this means is I will be involved with this product for the long haul.
Thanks again, and I welcome other questions.
Thank you for the valid questions. Your last question has prompted me to weigh an air hose and one of my hydraulic hoses, for comparison.
My philosophy with my system is that I openly explain it, both pros and any cons. I believe there are far more pros than cons, otherwise I would not have put all the effort into the system. But for example, if someone is interested in all out speed, say for a table mounted rivet squeezer for small brackets, and has no interest in other using other forming heads, a pneumatic squeezer may be best. In this example case, for a pneumatic squeezer mounted to a stand weight and size would not be an issue.
I also don't claim to be perfect with my product, and it will continually refine over time. What I do want to emphasize is that this product, with all the development involved is not a "get in quick and make a buck, then bail out" product. What this means is I will be involved with this product for the long haul.
Thanks again, and I welcome other questions.
clevtool
Well Known Member
You can kind of tell from the video the noise level, but to put it into perspective, it is as quiet or quieter than the inexpensive and bulky pop only tools. The other cherry pullers available actually have an air driven hydraulic pump in them and make a sound similar (but quieter) to a rivet gun. This tool is FAR quieter than those tools and will pull the same rivets.
Plug for Mark-
and his HPRS. I saw the video of this a year ago, and came up with a few ideas. Mark has been a pleasure to work with, and is definately (IMHO) in this for the long haul. He was willing to listen to ideas, and even used some of them. Just so you'll know, my interests were not only using his system for riviting, but for "other purposes" as well. I think the value of this tools speaks for itself.
Good job Mark!
Tom
and his HPRS. I saw the video of this a year ago, and came up with a few ideas. Mark has been a pleasure to work with, and is definately (IMHO) in this for the long haul. He was willing to listen to ideas, and even used some of them. Just so you'll know, my interests were not only using his system for riviting, but for "other purposes" as well. I think the value of this tools speaks for itself.
Good job Mark!
Tom
I agree with Mike and will add that the air which makes any noise at all in the HPRS is ALL occuring down at your feet, as opposed to near where the rivet is being squeezed (near your face sometimes depending on the situation). I sometimes used to like to get that blast of air with a pnuematic squeezer, in the hot summer months. But the noise with those traditional squeezers is always there. Again I have a muffler on my unit, and pneumatic squeezers mostly don't have one.
It also me think holding a standard pneumatic squeezer, with a larger diamter body, while simultaneously controlling the valve on the unit and holding a bracket in the other hand is more challenging. Especially when you've been using a 5 Lb unit for several hours (fatigue).
It also me think holding a standard pneumatic squeezer, with a larger diamter body, while simultaneously controlling the valve on the unit and holding a bracket in the other hand is more challenging. Especially when you've been using a 5 Lb unit for several hours (fatigue).
A key difference between the HPRS squeezer and a traditional pneumatic only squeezer
The following comment is applicable to the rivet squeezer head, as opposed to the puller head which started the thread. Forwarning: DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE A SHORT ATTENTION SPAN, AS THIS SUBJECT MAY BE INHERENTLY BORING TO SOME (I have A short attention span in some cases too).
I need to do a better job explaining (via the operation manual and on my upcoming improved web site) a key difference between the HPRS squeezer and a traditional pneumatic only squeezer.
BACKGROUND:
With a pnuematic rivet squeezer (both C and alligator types), a 2" dia air piston forces a wedge to develop mechanical advantage. The piston makes only about 300 lbf of force off 90 psi air input into the (bulky) cylinder you hold, but through a cam and a wedge, can amplifiy the force to about 3,800 lbf (max). All is well and good (except for maybe the carpal tunnel issue...
) When you adjust the compression pin distance from the tip of the yoke, either via a threaded pin or with spacing washers, what you are doing is maintaining the relationship of a cam near the opposite end of the threaded compression pin with respect to the profiled wedge. This all sounds complicated, and it sort of is, because you can't see what is going on inside the unit. Study a few of Chicago Pneumatic's patent figures (from as far back as about 1939) for a while and you will understand.
1ST MAIN POINT: The pneumatic only squeezer is sensitive to this pin postion, and these units have been designed so that the unit produces its maximum force with dies installed that squeeze a -4 or -5 rivet. When you want to squeeze longer length rivets, you must dial the pin back to effectively maintain the same previosly described cam to profiled wedge relationship. OTHERWISE YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SQUEEZE A RIVET, as the force drops by almost 1/2 in only .030" of misadjustment. I know, since I have measured this relationship. Long time users think they are controlling where the pin stops relative to the rivet to be formed, but I put the challenge out there that if anyone thinks I am wrong here, squeeze a rivet then put a 1/4" thick piece of steel in between the compression pin and the rivet WITHOUT adjusting the unit. It will no longer squeeze the rivet, I will guarantee this.
2ND MAIN POINT: For my HPRS rivet squeezer the force is generated by a hydraulic piston. There is NO VARIATION of the force as long as the piston does not run out of travel. The piston travel is ultimately limited by the volume of fluid which can be displaced by the intensifier. The piston in my unit has slightly less travel than the pneumatic squeezer (.55 vs about .70"), but as long as YOU ADJUST THE COMPRESSION PIN TO BE FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE RIVET TO BE SQUEEZED in the first place, the rivet will be squeezed.
Some have asked, "How do you make adjustments for different rivet lengths or diameters?" For the length aspect, not much adjustment is needed, as long as the compression pin with die installed is reasonably close to the rivet, to avoid running out of travel. For the diameter aspect, such as squeezing an AD3 rivet, you would dial down the air regulator to the intensifier slightly. This is akin to using a rivet gun to buck different rivet diameters. My unit is sized to product the right force for an AD4 rivet at 90 psi air input. It's that simple. The supply pressure can be safely boosted to 120 psi as needed, or run down to as low as 10 psi or so (for what purposes I don't know).
Without getting into a complicated discussion of rivet column buckling, and the math that even I can't remember any more, when a rivet is compressed THE AREA OF THE FORMED HEAD INCREASES. So while the force input to the rivet may be constant, as the head is formed the PRESSURE decreases rapidly (pressure = force/area). To some extent this presents a limit to overforming a rivet, unless you drasticly change some other parameter, like the force capability of the squeezer or for my unit the air pressure.
Suffice to say it only takes a few rivets to find out what works for you. I would apologize for the verbose description, but I had forwarned everyone.
The following comment is applicable to the rivet squeezer head, as opposed to the puller head which started the thread. Forwarning: DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE A SHORT ATTENTION SPAN, AS THIS SUBJECT MAY BE INHERENTLY BORING TO SOME (I have A short attention span in some cases too).
I need to do a better job explaining (via the operation manual and on my upcoming improved web site) a key difference between the HPRS squeezer and a traditional pneumatic only squeezer.
BACKGROUND:
With a pnuematic rivet squeezer (both C and alligator types), a 2" dia air piston forces a wedge to develop mechanical advantage. The piston makes only about 300 lbf of force off 90 psi air input into the (bulky) cylinder you hold, but through a cam and a wedge, can amplifiy the force to about 3,800 lbf (max). All is well and good (except for maybe the carpal tunnel issue...
) When you adjust the compression pin distance from the tip of the yoke, either via a threaded pin or with spacing washers, what you are doing is maintaining the relationship of a cam near the opposite end of the threaded compression pin with respect to the profiled wedge. This all sounds complicated, and it sort of is, because you can't see what is going on inside the unit. Study a few of Chicago Pneumatic's patent figures (from as far back as about 1939) for a while and you will understand.1ST MAIN POINT: The pneumatic only squeezer is sensitive to this pin postion, and these units have been designed so that the unit produces its maximum force with dies installed that squeeze a -4 or -5 rivet. When you want to squeeze longer length rivets, you must dial the pin back to effectively maintain the same previosly described cam to profiled wedge relationship. OTHERWISE YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SQUEEZE A RIVET, as the force drops by almost 1/2 in only .030" of misadjustment. I know, since I have measured this relationship. Long time users think they are controlling where the pin stops relative to the rivet to be formed, but I put the challenge out there that if anyone thinks I am wrong here, squeeze a rivet then put a 1/4" thick piece of steel in between the compression pin and the rivet WITHOUT adjusting the unit. It will no longer squeeze the rivet, I will guarantee this.
2ND MAIN POINT: For my HPRS rivet squeezer the force is generated by a hydraulic piston. There is NO VARIATION of the force as long as the piston does not run out of travel. The piston travel is ultimately limited by the volume of fluid which can be displaced by the intensifier. The piston in my unit has slightly less travel than the pneumatic squeezer (.55 vs about .70"), but as long as YOU ADJUST THE COMPRESSION PIN TO BE FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE RIVET TO BE SQUEEZED in the first place, the rivet will be squeezed.
Some have asked, "How do you make adjustments for different rivet lengths or diameters?" For the length aspect, not much adjustment is needed, as long as the compression pin with die installed is reasonably close to the rivet, to avoid running out of travel. For the diameter aspect, such as squeezing an AD3 rivet, you would dial down the air regulator to the intensifier slightly. This is akin to using a rivet gun to buck different rivet diameters. My unit is sized to product the right force for an AD4 rivet at 90 psi air input. It's that simple. The supply pressure can be safely boosted to 120 psi as needed, or run down to as low as 10 psi or so (for what purposes I don't know).
Without getting into a complicated discussion of rivet column buckling, and the math that even I can't remember any more, when a rivet is compressed THE AREA OF THE FORMED HEAD INCREASES. So while the force input to the rivet may be constant, as the head is formed the PRESSURE decreases rapidly (pressure = force/area). To some extent this presents a limit to overforming a rivet, unless you drasticly change some other parameter, like the force capability of the squeezer or for my unit the air pressure.
Suffice to say it only takes a few rivets to find out what works for you. I would apologize for the verbose description, but I had forwarned everyone.
Last edited:
PNEUMATIC RIVETER FORCE VARIATION 101
<<<<<CAUTION: Reading this post may cause death by extreme boredom! Read at your own risk!>>>>>
The below LONG dissertation is everything you probably never wanted to know about why a pneumatic rivet squeezer force varies.
Here is a link to an exploded view of a standard pneumatic riveter, courtesy of planetools.com:
http://store-planetools.com/compressionrivetsqueezerparts.aspx
For those that stayed awake during my last post (zzzzz..... and I gotta applaud you for your pain threshold), you will note that item 41 in this exploded view is a semi-bullet shaped wedge. It is not a straight taper, like a wedge you might use for a door jamb, but rather, it has a blunt end and then a very slight grade after that. This wedge is directly connected to the previously mentioned piston #36 (of about 2" in diameter).
By the way, for squeezing larger diameter rivets, or harder materials like stainless, why do they make tandem riveters with more force, rather than just making a larger piston/cylinder arrangement to generate more force? I mean a 3.5" diameter piston would equate to two 2" pistons, area wise, so why add more parts/complication? The reason is that unless you can readily palm a basketball, a 2.5" diameter cylinder is about as much as a normal adult can hold onto for hours on end. My hydraulic cylinder in my standard C-squeezer is only 1.5" in diameter, and it is MUCH easier to hold onto a small diameter than a larger one (think bicycle grips).
Anyway...back to the saga of the force variation...you'll note in the exploded view that when you line up all the parts, wedge #41 acts on the roller bearing of the lever bearing assy #216. The wedge forces the lever (I previously called it a cam - whatever) to articulate, and this in turn pushes out the compression pin #67 I've been referring to, which may or may not have a threaded half to make adjustments to the final position.
So....the wedge, being anything but a straight taper, develops its MAXIMUM force at the very end of the piston stroke. Alligator squeezers use a similar approach, they just have jaws instead of a compression pin, and reference their maximum force at about the FINAL 1/8" OF STROKE. Again, C-yoke squeezers are designed to develop their maximum force at the very end of the stroke. You can dial an adjustable threaded pin back to MAINTAIN THE INTERFACE RELATIONSHIP with the bearing of the lever assembly, but depending on the length of the dies you install, at some point YOU RUN OUT OF ADJUSTMENT and you start affecting the output force.
I rest my case about the variation of force for standard pneumatic squeezers (if anyone is left out there that cares). I think the existing manufacturers are only too happy if you don't understand this. Of course, what alternative did you have anyway, until now.
And why have I been going into such detail to explain all this? Sure, to sell my units. But I don't expect I'm going to put the Chicago Pneumatics, USATCO, Sioux, et al out of business anytime soon, as these are established tool makers, and most people will never end up reading this thread. Many people/businesses will happily plunk down a grand plus for what's been available for 30 years or more (and if you think my units are expensive, feel free to buy a new squeezer only unit from an established commercial aircraft tool suplier - cha ching). I've spent time here to educate you (the lone reader left awake) to make an educated decision if you are in the market to purchase a rivet forming device. When I bought my squeezer back in 2006, I also had no clue about what is going on inside one of the pneumatic squeezers. It was only after I thought about it awhile and decided it should be possible to make a unit which was smaller, lighter, more versatile, and had CONSTANT FORCE. I set out to design such a system (I have made specialized fluid fill tooling for auto companies, which gave me the background), and this is it.
This concludes the course. zzzzzz.........
If you have read all this, in all seriousness I appreciate you taking the time. You now know what 98% of the people who own a squeezer don't know. Take one apart if you really want to understand it. Or then again just finish your airplane like I need to do.
<<<<<CAUTION: Reading this post may cause death by extreme boredom! Read at your own risk!>>>>>
The below LONG dissertation is everything you probably never wanted to know about why a pneumatic rivet squeezer force varies.
Here is a link to an exploded view of a standard pneumatic riveter, courtesy of planetools.com:
http://store-planetools.com/compressionrivetsqueezerparts.aspx
For those that stayed awake during my last post (zzzzz..... and I gotta applaud you for your pain threshold), you will note that item 41 in this exploded view is a semi-bullet shaped wedge. It is not a straight taper, like a wedge you might use for a door jamb, but rather, it has a blunt end and then a very slight grade after that. This wedge is directly connected to the previously mentioned piston #36 (of about 2" in diameter).
By the way, for squeezing larger diameter rivets, or harder materials like stainless, why do they make tandem riveters with more force, rather than just making a larger piston/cylinder arrangement to generate more force? I mean a 3.5" diameter piston would equate to two 2" pistons, area wise, so why add more parts/complication? The reason is that unless you can readily palm a basketball, a 2.5" diameter cylinder is about as much as a normal adult can hold onto for hours on end. My hydraulic cylinder in my standard C-squeezer is only 1.5" in diameter, and it is MUCH easier to hold onto a small diameter than a larger one (think bicycle grips).
Anyway...back to the saga of the force variation...you'll note in the exploded view that when you line up all the parts, wedge #41 acts on the roller bearing of the lever bearing assy #216. The wedge forces the lever (I previously called it a cam - whatever) to articulate, and this in turn pushes out the compression pin #67 I've been referring to, which may or may not have a threaded half to make adjustments to the final position.
So....the wedge, being anything but a straight taper, develops its MAXIMUM force at the very end of the piston stroke. Alligator squeezers use a similar approach, they just have jaws instead of a compression pin, and reference their maximum force at about the FINAL 1/8" OF STROKE. Again, C-yoke squeezers are designed to develop their maximum force at the very end of the stroke. You can dial an adjustable threaded pin back to MAINTAIN THE INTERFACE RELATIONSHIP with the bearing of the lever assembly, but depending on the length of the dies you install, at some point YOU RUN OUT OF ADJUSTMENT and you start affecting the output force.
I rest my case about the variation of force for standard pneumatic squeezers (if anyone is left out there that cares). I think the existing manufacturers are only too happy if you don't understand this. Of course, what alternative did you have anyway, until now.
And why have I been going into such detail to explain all this? Sure, to sell my units. But I don't expect I'm going to put the Chicago Pneumatics, USATCO, Sioux, et al out of business anytime soon, as these are established tool makers, and most people will never end up reading this thread. Many people/businesses will happily plunk down a grand plus for what's been available for 30 years or more (and if you think my units are expensive, feel free to buy a new squeezer only unit from an established commercial aircraft tool suplier - cha ching). I've spent time here to educate you (the lone reader left awake) to make an educated decision if you are in the market to purchase a rivet forming device. When I bought my squeezer back in 2006, I also had no clue about what is going on inside one of the pneumatic squeezers. It was only after I thought about it awhile and decided it should be possible to make a unit which was smaller, lighter, more versatile, and had CONSTANT FORCE. I set out to design such a system (I have made specialized fluid fill tooling for auto companies, which gave me the background), and this is it.
This concludes the course. zzzzzz.........
If you have read all this, in all seriousness I appreciate you taking the time. You now know what 98% of the people who own a squeezer don't know. Take one apart if you really want to understand it. Or then again just finish your airplane like I need to do.
Last edited:
