A few nice machining services factory images I found:
Home Office – My Desk – Old 2005
Image by fensterbme
UPDATED: This photo is over five years old and is out-dated. If you are interested in seeing what my half of our office looks like Click Here. I’ve switched almost entirely over to Mac and things are a lot simpler overall.
Old Description of Office as it Was in 2005:
I spend a lot of time here. It’s my half of our home office (my wife has the other half). I work out of my house about 40% of the time, and my wife works out of the house in the evenings and weekends. We both work a good bit… so we are in this room more than any other in our house.
Anyways, my side of our office is filled with tech stuff. I have two large tower cases (one is a server, the other is my desktop), my work laptop, my personal laptop and my Macinotsh G4.
These machines connect to another group of computers in my basement (I have six runs of CAT5e cabling between my 2nd floor office and basement). I run my firewall (Smoothwall), two test linux systems, and another Windows XP machine running next to my music/audio stuff, all out of my basement to avoid the complete geek overrun of the office. In fact soon the server and desktop machines will also move to the basement and into a custom rack enclosure (along with my other mess of boxes downstairs) I will then build another AMD dual core system to be my desktop computer. As my current desktop is headed to be a virtualization server (VMWare) which will act as a test bed /home lab for me.
All the fast stuff connects via gigabit ethernet (Server, Main Desktop, G4 Macintosh, downstairs XP machine and my wife’s HP nc8230 laptop), the other stuff has to stay in the slow lane with fast ethernet connections, or wireless connections if I feel like walking about.
Click here to see a photo of our book case on the other side of the room.
Here is a link to the photo of my real office which isn’t nearly as exciting.
NOTE: This photo made it into Flickr’s ‘Explore" as one of the top five hundred most interesting photos on a particular day. You can see all of my photo’s that have made it into the Flickr Explore pages here.
Heavy Soviet Tank KV-2. 1941. Советский тяжелый танк КВ-2. 1941 год.
Image by Peer.Gynt
Digitally Composed Graphics.
On December 19, 1939, KV-1(Kliment Voroshilov) Heavy Tank was accepted for the service. At that time, KV-1 took part in combat tests on the Russian-Finnish War (so-called « Winter War»). During those battles, the Soviet High Command come to conclusion that the heavy tank with more powerful armament is highly needed to combat with enemy bunkers, pillboxes and other fortifications.
The North-Western Front HQ ordered first four KV-1 tanks from experimental party must been armed with 152 mm howitzers. To do this, the best engineers from KTZ’s design bureau were summoned. After two weeks a new project was completed. In a first time engineers decided use the 152 mm mod.1909/1930 Howitzer, but later it was replaced with more modern 152 mm M-10 Howitzer Model 1938/1940. A new, bigger turret was designed to accept such heavy cannon. That turret was named «MT-1».
At the beginning of 1941, the this tank was renamed to KV-2. Before this, the KV-1 called as «The Tank With a Small Turret» while KV-2 called as «The Tank With a Big Turret». The MT-1 turret was placed on the chassis of a twin-turret experimental tank instead of small turret (a large turret was also removed from the hull). On February 10, 1940, first trials were conducted. At the time, Soviet tank designers weren’t very experienced in vehicles of such a heavy weight. They added a small lid on the the howitzer’s barrel. That lid was intended to prevent a gun from the dust, shell’s fragments and bullets. However, after the first shot this lid was torn away, after that it was never used.
In 1940, a pair of KV-2 were sent to the battlefront on the Karelian isthmus. In spite of some rumors, KV-2s didn’t take part in battles before the Great Patriotic War. The pair of KV-2 fired on already captured pillboxes. The results of those tests were excellent and later, in 1940, a KV-2 Heavy Tank was accepted for service. Soviet tankers often nicknamed those tanks as «Dreadnoughts».
During the production, the tank’s turret was slightly improved and additional DT Machine-Gun was mounted in it. The shortened M-10 Howitzer was able to fire a 52-kg high-explosive projectile with muzzle velocity of 436 m/s.
Please notice, only high-explosive shells with reduced propellant charge were used for KV-2’s gun! No armor-piercing and concrete-piercing ammo used! It was allowed to use Naval Semi-AP Round M.1915/28. However that ammo used only in Red Navies, it was absent in Red Army’s warehouses. Despite some modern sources, the usage of armor-piercing and concrete-piercing ammunition was prohibited; it was specially highlighted in the KV-2’s Operational Manual. The problem was with its big recoil; it definitely jammed KV’s turret. Untill the middle of 1941 Soviet engineed tried to develop a special concrete-piercing projectile for KV-2, but unsuccessful and then Germany invades to the USSR so all further works were stopped at all.
KV-2 had 36 rounds for its main gun and 3087 rounds for its bow and rear machine-guns. The crew of six crewmembers: tank commander, gun commander, second gun commander (loader), gunner, driver, and radio operator.
Besides of the 152-mm howtzer, there were some other guns which were either tested or intended to be mount on the KV-2. One of that was an attempt to mount a long barreled 106.7 mm Gun ZIS-6 (initially, this gun was proposed for the perspective KV-3 and KV-5 tanks). From May to June of 1941, the KV-2 with the ZIS-6 was tested on factory’s trials, after that it was sent to the ANIOP’s trials which it failed. Main problem was with gun’s ammunition: the gun had single-loading rounds. Such a lond and heavy shells were wery hard to handle and operate by a single loader.
Additionaly, the KV-2 armed with the 85 mm Gun F-39. Ordered by the NKO, in March 1941, a KV-2 with this gun was tested but I was unable to find results of those tests.
Unfortunately, the new tank had same drawbacks in transmission and chassis as the KV-1. Besides, most of KV-2 tanks didn’t have a proper number of ammunition. Nevertheless, the appearance of KV-2 became a shock for German tankers. There wasn’t any weapon, with the exception of the 88 mm AA-Gun, that could successfully defeat this beast.
Up north, the 6-Panzer-Division under Panzer-Gruppe 4 had encountered Russian heavy tanks. As related in the war diary of Panzer-Regiment 11 on 25 June 1941 (cited from T. Jentz «Panzertruppen»):
«During the morning, the II.Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment 11 together with Kampfgruppe von Seckendorff advanced along the right-hand march route. Throughout the day both units fought off repeated attacks from the Russian 2nd Armored Division. Unfortunately, the Russian 52 ton heavy tanks showed that it was almost insensitive to hits from the 10.5-cm. Several hits from a 15-cm gun were ineffective and bounced off. However, continuous attacks by several Pz Kpfw lV managed to knock out a large number of tanks throughout the day, which allowed our own attack to again drive forward to about three kilometers west of Dubysa.
The bridgehead of Kampfgruppe Raus was held. During the afternoon, as a reserve, a reinforced company and the headquarters of Panzer-Abteilung 65 were pulled back along the left attack route to the crossroads northeast of Rossienie. In the meantime a Russian heavy tank had blocked the communications route to Kampfgruppe Raus, so that contact with Kampfgruppe Raus was broken for the entire afternoon and during the night. An 8.8-cm Flak battery was sent by the commander to fight this tank. It was just as unsuccessful as a 10.5-cm battery whose fire was directed by a forward observer. In addition, an attempt by a Pioneer assault troop using balled explosives failed. It was impossible to get close to the tank because of heavy machine gun fire».
The most of KV-2 tanks were lost because of breakdowns. For example, 41st Tank Division lost 22 KV-2 tanks of 33 tanks total. The only 5 tanks were destroyed by the enemy, other 17 tanks were abandoned because of breakdowns or run out of fuel.
In October 1941, the KV-2’s manufacture was cancelled. Totally 334 KV-2 tanks were produced.
Article is written by Valeri Potapov
www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=…
Clock Tower on the Nashua River
Image by StarrGazr
This is Clocktower Place (Historic and Luxurious Apartments), condos in Nashua, NH in the former quarters of the Nashua Manufacturing Company on the Nashua River in downtown Nashua, New Hampshire USA.
The History of Nashua, NH USA – 1775 – 1830
After the Indian Wars and until the American Revolution of 1776, Dunstable was mostly a farming community. Corn and Vegetables were grown on the Merrimack/Nashua River intervale. Hay and Orchards were prevalent on the southern side.
Merchants and travelers from outside of town from the north and south used Nashua as a thoroughfare thereby creating a hospitality and entertainment economy. Many taverns and hotels were built along The Great Road (Main Street) such as Tylers Tavern which provided necessary comfort and service.
Daniel Abbot moved to the upper community of Dunstable in 1802. Abbot is a Harvard graduate who soon after opened a law practice here. Abbot quickly became a civic leader who then proceeded to rename Dunstable to "Nashua Village" in a speech given on July 4th in 1803.
Right about the same time, Josiah Griswold Graves, MD became the first physician in town. He became very popular because he had an exceptional ability in diagnosing ailments of his patients.
Nashua was heading towards a full scale industrial makeover. During the 1820’s, Abott, along with the Greeley brothers, Daniel Webster and some Massachusetts Industrial Investors formed a coalition to create the first textile mills in Dunstable powering Nashua’s Industrial Revolution. Abott had been watching his Harvard counterparts in Massachusetts and knew Dunstable had the water power to begin the Waltham-Lowell venture. He moved forward to begin the industry that would become the socio-economic scene dominating the 1830’s – 1860’s.
Robert Owen, resident of New Lanark, Scotland is credited with creation of the infant structure of our city. The basis of his landmark design includes the layout of the streets, the mills and their basic architecture, and most importantly; social planning which included how the employees would be treated.
Two men, Nathaniel Appleton and Patrick Tracy Jackson, traveled to New Lanark and studied the designs of Owen. The Owen design made it all the way to Nashua from Scotland; consisting of a mill, worker housing, a school, and a church, all run by the originating mill company. This combined with the mastermind of Francis Cabot Lowell and the energy of Daniel Abbot began the enterprise of Nashua’s economic future.
Francis Cabot Lowell, Harvard graduate and math major, traveled to England with the express interest of studying the textile designs of the James Archright Power Loom and creating it’s mirror here in the United States. His extended vacation included touring the industries where the loom existed and in essence, formulated the designs in his mind. An extreme form of piracy in that day as the patent for the machine and exporting the technology was expressly prohibited. His textile looms were better than their English predecessors and his fabrics soon found their way into world commerce.
Francis Cabot Lowell – Nathaniel Appleton
The first large company created was the Nashua Manufacturing Company in 1823. Nashua Manufacturing was the first in New Hampshire completed in the full scale Waltham-Lowell design.
The Waltham-Lowell design, including especially the church, met the demands of the New England farmer father as a "socially and morally acceptable" place of employment for their daughters, as they made up the majority of the mill workforce.
For 30 years, tens of thousands of young, single women migrated to the Waltham-Lowell mills and revolutionized women’s labor in America, and the world, right here in Nashua!
Mill Girls
Daniel Abbot was a great and powerful force fueling the creation of Nashua’s Mills. His passion for growth and success empowered the people to achieve their greatest, evident even today. Daniel Abbot, coined ‘the Father of Nashua’ is due to his many contributions to its rich heritage.
Nashua was and continues to be the New Hampshire cradle of technological culture. The design and creation is a progressive sophisticated model of technical and social innovation.
Daniel Abbot
Other prime manufacture in this new mill town included ironworks, shirting, linens, shoes, wood products, and coated paper. Nashua’s position on the Merrimack River made it easily accessible for consumers and suppliers off the Atlantic Ocean. The opening of the Middlesex Canal in 1803 also contributed to the ease of water transport. The Nashua River became a riverfront mercantile village offering more trade then than what you can find in all of Nashua today.
During this busy time, a wooden covered toll bridge enabled passage over the Merrimack for travel to and from Hudson. Before the bridge, the only way across the river was by ferry. Three ferries, Cummings; at the mouth of the Nashua River, Hills; in the North end, and Littles; at the south side of Nashua gave access to and from Nashua and Hudson.
More:
Downtown History – Great American Downtown
Nashua Manufacturing Company Collection from the Harvard Business School.