Investment Casting History
INVESTMENT CASTING HISTORY : TYPES OF INVESTMENT PLANS
Investment Casting History
- Investment casting is an industrial process based on and also called lost-wax casting, one of the oldest known metal-forming techniques.
- (investment cast) Clubs made from a mold.
- A technique for making small, accurate castings in refractory alloys using a mold formed around a pattern of wax or similar material which is then removed by melting
- (investment cast) a cast made of a material that will withstand high temperature without disintegration—compREFRACTORY CAST
investment casting
- The whole series of past events connected with someone or something
- the discipline that records and interprets past events involving human beings; “he teaches Medieval history”; “history takes the long view”
- The study of past events, particularly in human affairs
- The past considered as a whole
- the aggregate of past events; “a critical time in the school’s history”
- a record or narrative description of past events; “a history of France”; “he gave an inaccurate account of the plot to kill the president”; “the story of exposure to lead”
history
A peaceful South Asia can be built only if India works with China. The alternative will be war and mayhem and history provides many examples by M. K. Bhadrakumar
An Assistant Secretary dealing with South Asia in the State Department in Washington a decade-and-a-half ago once took justifiable pride that she only needed a clutch of minutes to get the Indians all worked up into a tizzy. What the loquacious U.S. diplomat, who was an old India-Pakistan hand familiar with the human frailties (and vanities) in our part of the world, meant was that Indians never bothered to crosscheck facts when they came across an unpalatable thought.
She had a point. And her adage holds good. When an opinion piece by the U.S. strategic analyst, Selig Harrison, appeared in the New York Times recently alleging large-scale Chinese military presence in the Northern Areas of Pakistan, history seemed to repeat itself. Our tribal instincts resurfaced. It still remains foggy on what basis Mr. Harrison painted the apocalyptic vision of war drums beating distantly in the obscure Himalayan mountains. The regions beyond the northern edges of Kashmir comprise tangled, inaccessible mountains and it is highly improbable that Mr. Harrison wrote on the basis of any first-hand information regarding the 22 secret tunnels in which 11,000 Chinese soldiers belonging to the People’s Liberation Army reportedly huddle uneasily alongside stockpiles of deadly missiles that could be launched against India. (Actually, the Pakistani authorities have invited him to go to that picturesque region and take a good look himself.)
Not much ingenuity is needed to discern that Mr. Harrison based his opinion piece on intelligence sources. All he would say later was that his story was based on “western and regional intelligence sources.” Who could be these sources? Politics should, after all, begin with asking a few blunt questions. Were these sources Pakistani, Afghan, Iranian, Russian or Chinese who guided Mr. Harrison? Seems illogical. Were they Indian sources based in Delhi — or Indian “analysts” comfortably located in Singapore? Indeed, by a process of elimination, we arrive at the conclusion that the greatest likelihood seems to be that Mr. Harrison’s sources were American. This of course is by no means casting aspersions on Mr. Harrison’s integrity. In fact, he has been most candid about his thesis when he concluded his opinion piece with a stirring call to the U.S. administration. He wrote: “The United States is uniquely situated to play a moderating role in Kashmir, given its growing economic and military ties with India and Pakistan’s aid dependence on Washington.
“Washington should press New Delhi to resume autonomy negotiations with Kashmiri separatists. Success would put pressure on Islamabad for comparable concessions in Free Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan … Precisely because the Gilgit-Baltistan region is so important to China, the U.S., India and Pakistan should work together to make sure that it is not overwhelmed … by the Chinese behemoth.”
Both Islamabad and Beijing have since repeatedly and unequivocally refuted the contents of Mr. Harrison’s article. Top Indian officials who have full access to intelligence have also off-the-record given their estimation that any Chinese presence in the Gilgit-Baltistan region could be related to flood-relief work and some development projects and it doesn’t involve Chinese regulars of the PLA. They are also inclined to accept the Chinese assurance that there is no change in Beijing’s stand on the Kashmir issue, including the part of Kashmir that is under Indian governance.
Equally, in their assessment, Chinese nationals are not taking up habitation in Gilgit-Baltistan, but come to the region from time to time to build infrastructure projects and they go away upon the completion of those projects. Delhi regards the figure of $1.7 billion as Chinese investment in Northern Areas and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as far-too inflated a figure. As a senior Indian official put it “They [the Chinese] are a business-like people and they won’t invest in that kind of area like that.”
Evidently, there is a glaring disconnect in New Delhi between those who know and generally prefer not to speak and those who rave but have no flair or patience for checking the facts on the ground. The problem with disregard of facts is that incrementally you withdraw into a smaller and smaller coil of rage and ultimately resign yourself to a sense of powerlessness, frustration and defeat. Should that be the fate of a great country like India that has survived for millennia?
Ultimately, it all boils down to China’s presence in the South Asian region and, as the Prime Minister put it the other day, “we have to reflect on this reality, we have to be aware of this.” The issue is: what is the nature of the “reality” so that we can come to terms with it?
The reality is China’s growing power and influence that need to be tackled in regional politic
Lone Star Toys – Die-Cast Tractor
Lone Star history:
Starting in 1949, the company manufactured die cast toys for children. The Lone Star name was chosen because of a demand at the time for toy guns and rifles popular in the Western films in cinemas all over Britain. The company also made tie-in toy guns licensed from the James Bond films and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. TV series.
Other early models included large numbers of hand painted toy soldier figures, mostly military, with some cowboy and Native American examples. Other figures were Thunderball frogmen. Additional figures were licensed from children’s series and included Noddy, Popeye and Zorro. Initially the soldiers were made in hollow cast lead, but later changed to plastic.
Production may have begun as early as 1939, continuing to 1947 in ‘The Bridge Garage’, Green Lanes, Palmers Green, London, N.13. Reportedly, from 1941 – 1942 temporary additional premises were opened on Pembroke Road, Muswell Hill, London, N.10. From 1947 – 1956 the ‘River Works’, 152 Green Lanes, Palmers Green, London, N.13 were in operation. In 1956, a milestone occurred with the move to purpose-built factory of 37,000 sq. at 168 Great North Road, Hatfield, Hertfordshire. In 1958, another factory was acquired at Ambridge, Gower and Mills, Holloways Lane, Welham Green, Hatfield, Hertfordshire.
Vehicles:
Following the lead of Dinky Toys, Lone Star started producing diecast model jet liners in 1959 with its 2-5-0 Series.
To keep up with competitors such as Corgi and Dinky, Lone Star began producing diecast toy vehicles in 1960 with a rapidly expanding range under names like ‘Lone Star Flyers’, the superb range of OO scale (1/76th) and ‘Lone Star Impy’ vehicles, which were uniformly about three and a half inches long (varying between 1:43 and 1:50 scales). Thus like Matchbox, vehicle sizes seemed to adhere more to a particular size than to a particular scale.
A 1:50 scale Austin FX4 London Taxi. This model simply says ‘Lone Star Made in England’ on the base.Discovering a Lone Star vehicle and reading its base could be confusing as to the manufacturer. Some of the Impy Toys read thus: ‘Lone Star Road-Master Impy Super Cars’. To add to the confusion, elsewhere on the base, it would usually say DCMT. ‘Roadmaster’ was spelled with and without the hyphen. Apparently, Lone Star had a verbosity problem and, interpreted another way, the image could be quite amusing: ‘Texan street authority fantastic small sly cars (DCMT)’. Other 1:50 scale vehicles simply said, ‘Lone Star Made in England’ on the base.
Packaging was colored similar to Corgi and especially Dinky, with red and yellow panels, but castings, though handsome, seemed a bit cruder than the competition. For example, most Lone Stars have simpler bumper, grille and body detail than Corgi or Dinky. Later 1960s models commonly had orange tinted plastic transparent windows, but no interior detail. Head and tail lights were emphasized with silver or red paint – plastic lenses or jewels were seldom used.
In the beginning, wheels were diecast plain or painted metal, but by the later 1960s a good-looking eight spoke plastic wheel was introduced. Tyres in the late 1960s were hard ribbed plastic which were advertised as ‘non-scratch’. Perhaps this was supposed to appeal to parents who were afraid junior would mark the furniture with the toys
Trains:
Under the ‘Lone Star Locos’ name, the company produced (OOO scale), 2mm to the foot, British and American outline model push-along-trains in 1957. These utilised 8.25mm gauge metal track and a range of diecast station buildings. This line was designed by long term Lone Star employee Stuart Goss, and followed in 1960 by ‘Treble-0-Lectric’ electrically powered working models of two British diesel locomotives: The Class 24 Sulzer Type 2 diesel, the Class 23 Napier Type 2 ‘Baby Deltic’ diesel, an American Baldwin 0-8-0 Steam Locomotive and an F7 US Diesel Electric loco which was available in both US and Canadian liveries. These were accompanied by track, British and Continental outline rolling stock, scenic items and other accessories, such as the ‘Gulliver County’ range of rubber moulded buildings in 2mm scale. Vacuum-formed bases were available to form ‘instant’ scenic layouts and these could be purchased separately or in sets.
The electric train models were reasonably well received in the Model Railway press of the time (although some felt that the rubber band drive would be somewhat awkward for children to change) and essentially showed that a viable 2mm to the foot system could be designed, manufactured and marketed in the UK. Lone Star Treble-O-Lectric trains essentially introduced the concept that would later become British "N" gauge – 10 years ahead of the competition.
However, limited toy trade distribution, the existence
