Button Question

staffwalker · Post by **staffwalker** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:44 am

Back when I started learning to make pipes, two and a half years ago (and after the first few clunkers which I was so proud of, only later to realize they were pure crap), one of the first things I looked at was how to make a comfortable stem. At that time (and still do), I had somewhere over three hundred pipes, most from ebay, others given to me by ex-smokers and new ones I had purchased. Having smoked all of them, as improbable as that may seem, I knew some felt good in the mouth and others didn't. I took each and measured the button on the stem. Not just the thickness of the stem just before the button but the actual 'lip' of the button. They ranged from 24 thousands/6.5mm on the thickest stem to 14 thou/3.7mm on the thinnest. The lip of the buttons ranged from 30 thou/8mm to 24 thou/6.5mm. After lots of measuring and lots of smoking I determined not to declare a pipe finished until the stem was 16 thou/4.5mm or less and the lip of the button was 25 thou/6.8mm or less.

I have read lots of talk here and elsewhere about the thickness/thinness of the stem but I can't recall a single discussion about the actual thickness/thinness of the lip of the button. Yet, for me and my smoking experience the lip is just as important or perhaps more so in the way a pipe feels in the mouth. A pipe with a thin stem still feels clunky if it has a thick lip on the button. I have several pipes that fit that category.

What do you guys strive for in the thickness/thinness of the lip? Do you feel it is of equal importance with the thickness/thinness of the stem? Or are you just concerned with the stem and when you have it where you want it, do you then just shape the lip so it looks good without actually worrying about how thick or thin it is?

bob gilbert

baweaverpipes · Post by **baweaverpipes** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:39 am

The comfort zone I shoot for is .175/bit and .240-.250/button. However, some customers deviate from this +/- and, of course, the width of the stem is a determining factor, with skinny bits in the + range.

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:59 am

I agree completely. From about .16 to .17 in the bite area is normal for me, and the button about .24 +/-. I can go thinner if the client requests it, and I have some that do, but my normal range is as above.

ToddJohnson · Post by **ToddJohnson** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:24 pm

I don't ever use a set of calipers on a bit. I prefer instead to use my teeth. Different sized and shaped pipes require different bit thicknesses and widths to feel "right," I think. Thin and comfortable should go without saying, but as far as an actual measurement, I don't know. All of my bits probably fall within five thousandths of one another, but that's just a function of the process rather than trying to hit a certain measurement, I think.

Todd

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:26 pm

I agree on the "feel factor" - but for us mere mortals, a method of measuring usually helps keep us honest.

ToddJohnson · Post by **ToddJohnson** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:59 pm

KurtHuhn wrote:I agree on the "feel factor" - but for us mere mortals, a method of measuring usually helps keep us honest.

Ha! I didn't mean that to be uppity. I am suggesting, if anything, that my methods are cruder and less sophisticated than you high-tech micrometer wielding lot. You've got to work with the tools you've got, ya know.

Todd

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:17 pm

Interestingly, I just emerged from the workshop after making a 4 pipes and stems, and realized that I hadn't used a calipers at all - my calipers were sitting next to my computer the entire time. Just for giggles I measured them, and they all came out to about the same size - .16 thick in the bite area.

You must be right, Todd. There's something in the process or the tools that helps things end up that close.

Not that I'm going to forgo the calipers though.

jeff · Post by **jeff** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:03 pm

None of my stems are thicker than .15" (sorry, Todd, I suppose Jody's influence has caused me to pick up calipers now and again--though mostly as a scribe) with most falling around .14". You've got to be very careful when cutting and filing your slot to do this, though. I believe Brad Pohlmann whipped some calipers out of his pocket one day (he does that, you know) and measured a Maenz mouthpiece at .125". I guess that's why they're so comfortable. Oh, and I believe that Brad first looked at the mouthpiece and said something to this effect, "Oh my God! That's got to be 123 thousandths!" After which he whipped out the tool and confirmed his suspicion.

That being said, comfortable in my book is less than .15" while dangerous is anything less than .13"

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:57 pm

That sounds like a machinist or tool maker.

I usually leave mine a tad thicker than yours to account for biters. Though, if a certain couple customers email me and ask for a pipe, I got down to .15 or .14 for them. Verified with a caliper, of course.

ToddJohnson · Post by **ToddJohnson** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:07 pm

I typically get somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.21 gigawatz as measured with a flux capacitor. Anything more than that and you're really at risk. Anything less, and who knows what could happen.

Todd

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:02 am

Ahem. Actually that would be "Jigawats".

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:11 am

ToddJohnson wrote:I typically get somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.21 gigawatz as measured with a flux capacitor. Anything more than that and you're really at risk. Anything less, and who knows what could happen.

End up having a real live conversation with Sixten?

Either in the past or elsewhere.

ToddJohnson · Post by **ToddJohnson** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:35 pm

KurtHuhn wrote:Ahem. Actually that would be "Jigawats".

Right, "gigawatz," like gigantic.

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:11 pm

ToddJohnson wrote:
KurtHuhn wrote:Ahem. Actually that would be "Jigawats".
Right, "gigawatz," like gigantic.

NO! Jigawatz, as in Jigantic.

ToddJohnson · Post by **ToddJohnson** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:44 pm

Frank wrote:
ToddJohnson wrote:
KurtHuhn wrote:Ahem. Actually that would be "Jigawats".
Right, "gigawatz," like gigantic.
NO! Jigawatz, as in Jigantic.

Actually, I guess it would be Giga-watts, from the latin, gigas, meaning giant.

Todd

Frank · Post by **Frank** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:40 pm

ToddJohnson wrote:
Frank wrote:
ToddJohnson wrote: Right, "gigawatz," like gigantic.
NO! Jigawatz, as in Jigantic.
Actually, I guess it would be Giga-watts, from the latin, gigas, meaning giant.

(Sigh) Now I have to teach you guys Latin. The latin Gigass translates to Giantarse!

Post by **KurtHuhn** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:58 pm

ToddJohnson wrote:
Frank wrote:
ToddJohnson wrote: Right, "gigawatz," like gigantic.
NO! Jigawatz, as in Jigantic.
Actually, I guess it would be Giga-watts, from the latin, gigas, meaning giant.

Todd

Naw, it's Jiga-watts - as in "I'm dancing a Jig ever since I got a Mr Fusion to power my Jigawatt-hungry Delorean.".

RadDavis · Post by **RadDavis** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:22 pm

ToddJohnson wrote:
Actually, I guess it would be Giga-watts, from the latin, gigas, meaning giant.

Todd

There you go again with the fancy words.........

Rad

Alan L · Post by **Alan L** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:29 pm

Sorry to break into the latin-parsing, but I had a customer once who wanted a stem he could fit into a hole in his dentures so it would hang effortlessly. Bad mental images aside, what worked was one about 1/4" thick.

It's ugly, but he was happy, so what are ya gonna do?