Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hole center with an edge finder??
I'm locating the center of some holes .500" dia with a Starrett edge finder.
The tip of the edge finder is .200. I'm just not sure if I'm doing it the BEST way. Maybe I'm missing something. Basically, I lower the tip of the edge finder just inside the hole. I then move the X axis until It touches. I then move the Y axis until it's not touching. Then back to the X until it touches. I keep this up until rocking the Y axis no longer provides any clearance. Then I move the X in .150 and zero the DRO. Then I repeat this process again for the Y axis. Basically, I'm finding the tangent of the 2 axis. Is this the way it's normally done? This takes me a long time (inexperienced) The only instructions I've found on line, tell me how to locate a straight edge. Any PRO suggestions appreciated. RonL |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How about doing this?
Start with the edge finder approximately in the center of the hole. It doesn't have to be exact. Move in one direction along the X axis until you find the edge. Zero your DRO. Move in the opposite direction until you find the edge. Note the reading. Move half way back to zero. Zero the DRO. That is your zero for the X axis. Then do the same thing in the Y axis. The reason this works is that regardless of where you are in relation to the actual center of the circle, you are traversing a chord of that circle. If you bisect the chord and draw a line perpendicular to it at that point, the line will go through the center. This should get you accuracy as good as what you are doing and take a lot less time. Just how accurate do you need to be? And of course, all this assumes that the hole is actually round. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The holes are round. They're reamed. I need to be in the center +/- .002.
This makes a lot of sense. I knew I was missing something. Thanks guys! "Footy" wrote in message ... How about doing this? Start with the edge finder approximately in the center of the hole. It doesn't have to be exact. Move in one direction along the X axis until you find the edge. Zero your DRO. Move in the opposite direction until you find the edge. Note the reading. Move half way back to zero. Zero the DRO. That is your zero for the X axis. Then do the same thing in the Y axis. The reason this works is that regardless of where you are in relation to the actual center of the circle, you are traversing a chord of that circle. If you bisect the chord and draw a line perpendicular to it at that point, the line will go through the center. This should get you accuracy as good as what you are doing and take a lot less time. Just how accurate do you need to be? And of course, all this assumes that the hole is actually round. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I'm locating the center of some holes .500" dia with a Starrett edge finder. The tip of the edge finder is .200. I'm just not sure if I'm doing it the BEST way. Maybe I'm missing something. Basically, I lower the tip of the edge finder just inside the hole. I then move the X axis until It touches. I then move the Y axis until it's not touching. Then back to the X until it touches. I keep this up until rocking the Y axis no longer provides any clearance. Then I move the X in .150 and zero the DRO. Then I repeat this process again for the Y axis. Basically, I'm finding the tangent of the 2 axis. Is this the way it's normally done? This takes me a long time (inexperienced) The only instructions I've found on line, tell me how to locate a straight edge. Any PRO suggestions appreciated. RonL You've got to be bloody joking. That's the most half arsed way of finding a centre I've ever heard of. The geometry of chords says you'll be miles out because it takes a large movement in the X plane to make a small one in the Y plane as you approach the true diameter of a circle. I know I've explained that extremely badly but I know what I mean. Do yourself a favour. Turn a couple of short lengths of 1/2" bar. Stick one in the hole (it must be a tightish fit) and one in the chuck. Bring the two into line and eyeball them up until they are closely aligned. Put a straight edge across the two and you can see a gap of less than a thou. Move the bed until there is no gap in either plane. You are now aligned over the hole. Option 2. Stick a tight fitting 1/2" bar into the hole and fix a dial gauge to the milling head. Clock the bar up until you're concentric. Option 3. If you insist on using an edge finder (horrible bloody things at the best of times) eyeball it up until it's fairly central in the hole. Move X right until it touches and zero the DRO. Move X left until it touches and note the reading. Split the difference. Move back to the centre and repeat for the Y axis. Option 4. Stick a length of 1/2" bar in the chuck. Mount a dial gauge on the bed. Move the bed until the 1/2" bar goes in and out of the hole when you move the quill down. Touch the dial gauge against the bar. When the bar is perfectly centred the dial gauge won't move as the bar moves into the hole. If you're off centre the bar will still go in by forcing itself a bit one way or the other but the dial gauge will show up the error. Jiggle until you're centred in both planes. There's a bunch of other methods, any of which is better than the one you've been using which is close to useless. -- Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I'm locating the center of some holes .500" dia with a Starrett edge
finder. The tip of the edge finder is .200. I'm just not sure if I'm doing it the BEST way. Go to http://www.geocities.com/mklotz.geo/ and get osborne.zip and read the .txt file. You have to accurately measure your hole diameter but then this procedure will converge to the hole center in two or three iterations with better accuracy than simply bisecting the x and y chords. -- Regards, Carl Ijames carl.ijames at verizon.net |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Baker" wrote in
: wrote in message ... I'm locating the center of some holes .500" dia with a Starrett edge finder. The tip of the edge finder is .200. I'm just not sure if I'm doing it the BEST way. Maybe I'm missing something. Basically, I lower the tip of the edge finder just inside the hole. I then move the X axis until It touches. I then move the Y axis until it's not touching. Then back to the X until it touches. I keep this up until rocking the Y axis no longer provides any clearance. Then I move the X in .150 and zero the DRO. Then I repeat this process again for the Y axis. Basically, I'm finding the tangent of the 2 axis. Is this the way it's normally done? This takes me a long time (inexperienced) The only instructions I've found on line, tell me how to locate a straight edge. Any PRO suggestions appreciated. RonL You've got to be bloody joking. That's the most half arsed way of finding a centre I've ever heard of. The geometry of chords says you'll be miles out because it takes a large movement in the X plane to make a small one in the Y plane as you approach the true diameter of a circle. I know I've explained that extremely badly but I know what I mean. Do yourself a favour. Turn a couple of short lengths of 1/2" bar. Stick one in the hole (it must be a tightish fit) and one in the chuck. Bring the two into line and eyeball them up until they are closely aligned. Put a straight edge across the two and you can see a gap of less than a thou. Move the bed until there is no gap in either plane. You are now aligned over the hole. Option 2. Stick a tight fitting 1/2" bar into the hole and fix a dial gauge to the milling head. Clock the bar up until you're concentric. Option 3. If you insist on using an edge finder (horrible bloody things at the best of times) eyeball it up until it's fairly central in the hole. Move X right until it touches and zero the DRO. Move X left until it touches and note the reading. Split the difference. Move back to the centre and repeat for the Y axis. Option 4. Stick a length of 1/2" bar in the chuck. Mount a dial gauge on the bed. Move the bed until the 1/2" bar goes in and out of the hole when you move the quill down. Touch the dial gauge against the bar. When the bar is perfectly centred the dial gauge won't move as the bar moves into the hole. If you're off centre the bar will still go in by forcing itself a bit one way or the other but the dial gauge will show up the error. Jiggle until you're centred in both planes. There's a bunch of other methods, any of which is better than the one you've been using which is close to useless. -- Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk) How about doing it the right way, and use an axial indicator......Amazing how well those things work...since that is precisely what they are designed for.... -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... You've got to be bloody joking. That's the most half arsed way of finding a centre I've ever heard of. Well that was nice. I'll agree with you in that the original poster's method was flawed, but what's with the attitude? Do yourself a favour. Turn a couple of short lengths of 1/2" bar. Stick one in the hole (it must be a tightish fit) and one in the chuck. Bring the two into line and eyeball them up until they are closely aligned. Put a straight edge across the two and you can see a gap of less than a thou. Move the bed until there is no gap in either plane. You are now aligned over the hole. Well, speaking of bad ideas... Option 2. Stick a tight fitting 1/2" bar into the hole and fix a dial gauge to the milling head. Clock the bar up until you're concentric. How do you count the number of sheep in a field? Count all the legs and divide by four. Perhaps he should just clock the hole? Machine time is expensive and extra operations like turning a pin to fit a hole so you can clock it is a waste of time and/or money. Option 3. If you insist on using an edge finder (horrible bloody things at the best of times) eyeball it up until it's fairly central in the hole. Move X right until it touches and zero the DRO. Move X left until it touches and note the reading. Split the difference. Move back to the centre and repeat for the Y axis. I would have reservations about using an edge finder on a curved surface... Option 4. Stick a length of 1/2" bar in the chuck. Mount a dial gauge on the bed. Move the bed until the 1/2" bar goes in and out of the hole when you move the quill down. Touch the dial gauge against the bar. When the bar is perfectly centred the dial gauge won't move as the bar moves into the hole. If you're off centre the bar will still go in by forcing itself a bit one way or the other but the dial gauge will show up the error. Jiggle until you're centred in both planes. I can appriciate that there are frequently many ways to perform an operation, but this method introduces many errors and would be very sensitive to operator error. At work I clock holes because it's fast, accurate, and intrinsicly safe (as in, no surprises). There's a bunch of other methods, any of which is better than the one you've been using which is close to useless. More encouragement for someone who would probably appriciate it and could probably use it. Regards, Robin |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I'm locating the center of some holes .500" dia with a Starrett edge finder. The tip of the edge finder is .200. I'm just not sure if I'm doing it the BEST way. Maybe I'm missing something. Basically, I lower the tip of the edge finder just inside the hole. I then move the X axis until It touches. I then move the Y axis until it's not touching. Then back to the X until it touches. I keep this up until rocking the Y axis no longer provides any clearance. Then I move the X in .150 and zero the DRO. Then I repeat this process again for the Y axis. Basically, I'm finding the tangent of the 2 axis. Is this the way it's normally done? This takes me a long time (inexperienced) The only instructions I've found on line, tell me how to locate a straight edge. Any PRO suggestions appreciated. RonL Abandon the use of the edge finder and use a dial test indicator. Mounted in a drill chuck for easy turning, you can locate the center of your hole far more accurately than by other methods, and it's fast. Harold |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Yep. Thats the best way by far. I guess if you only needed say .005"
dead nuts the edge finder would be ok. But I want to do it right. Thanks all. "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... I'm locating the center of some holes .500" dia with a Starrett edge finder. The tip of the edge finder is .200. I'm just not sure if I'm doing it the BEST way. Maybe I'm missing something. Basically, I lower the tip of the edge finder just inside the hole. I then move the X axis until It touches. I then move the Y axis until it's not touching. Then back to the X until it touches. I keep this up until rocking the Y axis no longer provides any clearance. Then I move the X in .150 and zero the DRO. Then I repeat this process again for the Y axis. Basically, I'm finding the tangent of the 2 axis. Is this the way it's normally done? This takes me a long time (inexperienced) The only instructions I've found on line, tell me how to locate a straight edge. Any PRO suggestions appreciated. RonL Abandon the use of the edge finder and use a dial test indicator. Mounted in a drill chuck for easy turning, you can locate the center of your hole far more accurately than by other methods, and it's fast. Harold |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Hey RonL,
What Footy says, but I do the X again after I've done the Y. That way I'm more certain that I'm "seeing" the same kick of the finder. If you're slightly off the quadrant line at the first X test, you will note that the edge finder will be approaching form the opposite "angle" on each side along any but the chord line through the centre. And on my wobbly old mill, I figure that "dynamic" with the edge finder is better than the "static" of a DTI. Works for me. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:41:29 -0800, "Footy" wrote: How about doing this? Start with the edge finder approximately in the center of the hole. It doesn't have to be exact. Move in one direction along the X axis until you find the edge. Zero your DRO. Move in the opposite direction until you find the edge. Note the reading. Move half way back to zero. Zero the DRO. That is your zero for the X axis. Then do the same thing in the Y axis. The reason this works is that regardless of where you are in relation to the actual center of the circle, you are traversing a chord of that circle. If you bisect the chord and draw a line perpendicular to it at that point, the line will go through the center. This should get you accuracy as good as what you are doing and take a lot less time. Just how accurate do you need to be? And of course, all this assumes that the hole is actually round. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Robin S. wrote in message news "Dave Baker" wrote in message ... Option 2. Stick a tight fitting 1/2" bar into the hole and fix a dial gauge to the milling head. Clock the bar up until you're concentric. How do you count the number of sheep in a field? Count all the legs and divide by four. Hell no. Some of the sheep might only have three legs. First you count the number of legs on each sheep, note down how many don't have 4, calculate the average number of legs per sheep to several decimal places then count the total number of legs again and divide by your average. Perhaps he should just clock the hole? Most hobby machinists have a plunger type DTI knocking about but not so many have a lever type which is what you'd need to get inside a hole as small as 1/2" to clock it up. I was being charitable enough to assume that the OP didn't either or he'd be using it already instead of the edge finder and we wouldn't be answering the question in the first place so I was giving him some methods that didn't rely on him having one. If on the other hand he does have a lever type DTI, the primary use for which is to clock up holes, and he knows how to use it and still hadn't thought to apply it to this task I guess it would be rather like standing next to your car in the driveway scratching your head and still being unable to work out how you were going to get to the store 10 miles away without walking. The best method to use depends on how much accuracy you need, how much space you have between the quill and the job to fit DTIs into, what operation is going to be performed after the centralising and a bunch of other stuff all of which require a brain to foresee any pitfalls with. A lever type DTI might be best if you need to be centred to within a thou but other methods are far quicker if you don't. You can still cock the job up badly with a DTI if the mill head isn't aligned to the direction of hole in the workpiece properly and you move the knee down to make room to mount the DTI and then move it back again to mount the tool. I cut valve seats in cylinder heads on my Bridgeport. Every seat I cut means getting the mill head aligned exactly with the direction of the hole in the valve guide and then centred on the hole in the valve guide. I don't use a DTI for any of this because it isn't the fastest or best way to do it. None of the purpose built valve seat cutting systems use a DTI either for exactly the same reasons. -- Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... The holes are round. They're reamed. I need to be in the center +/- .002. This makes a lot of sense. I knew I was missing something. Thanks guys! Ron, I don't know how far you have to move off the hole, but if you're trying to hold +/- .002 inches, I presume you've also verified your DRO's are accurate? I only bring this up because of self professed "inexperience". Is this the way it's normally done? This takes me a long time (inexperienced) The only instructions I've found on line, tell me how to locate a straight edge. I also agree with Harold in a post further down. Use a DTI and sweep the hole. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... Perhaps he should just clock the hole? Most hobby machinists have a plunger type DTI knocking about but not so many have a lever type which is what you'd need to get inside a hole as small as 1/2" to clock it up. I was being charitable enough to assume Assumptions at work can cost thousands of dollars in a heartbeat. Or perhaps a life. Perhaps I'm being dramatic (although absolutely not overstating), but I can't imagine anyone who works in a shop gets far on assumptions... that the OP didn't either or he'd be using it already instead of the edge finder and we wouldn't be answering the question in the first place so I was giving him some methods that didn't rely on him having one. Why would you assume he didn't have one (or wasn't willing to purchase one)? Because he was using an edge finder the way he was, I wouldn't assume anything regarding the contents of his toolbox. If on the other hand he does have a lever type DTI, the primary use for which is to clock up holes, I rarely have the need to clock a hole. I use my DTI primarily for traming the mill head, squaring the vice, and roughing on a surface grinder. and he knows how to use it and still hadn't thought to apply it to this task I guess it would be rather like standing next to your car in the driveway scratching your head and still being unable to work out how you were going to get to the store 10 miles away without walking. Again with the assumptions. You assume everyone here has either gone through a formal apprenticeship (or two) or has precisely no knowledge in metalworking (and no tools to boot)? The best method to use depends on how much accuracy you need, how much space you have between the quill and the job to fit DTIs into, what operation is going to be performed after the centralising and a bunch of other stuff all of which require a brain to foresee any pitfalls with. A lever type DTI might be best if you need to be centred to within a thou but other methods are far quicker if you don't. True, but we don't know what the application is. He might be drilling clearance holes in angle iron for some structural job, or he might be trying to bore out an engine block. You can still cock the job up badly with a DTI if the mill head isn't aligned to the direction of hole in the workpiece properly and you move the knee down to make room to mount the DTI and then move it back again to mount the tool. Of course, but the resulting hole will be flawed as well - but that wasn't the original question and your previous suggestions didn't address any of these issues. I cut valve seats in cylinder heads on my Bridgeport. Every seat I cut means getting the mill head aligned exactly with the direction of the hole in the valve guide and then centred on the hole in the valve guide. I don't use a DTI for any of this because it isn't the fastest or best way to do it. None of the purpose built valve seat cutting systems use a DTI either for exactly the same reasons. Your right in that there is a possibility that none of the suggestions in this thread have correctly addressed the original poster's question. Naturally, it is the fault of the original poster for not providing enough information about his application. It is certainly not the fault of the DTI. Regards, Robin |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Robin S." wrote in message ... snip--- Your right in that there is a possibility that none of the suggestions in this thread have correctly addressed the original poster's question. I don't know that it is his right, or not. That he is correct, or not, is another issue. Did you mean *you're* right? Grasshopper, I take exception to your implication that none of the suggestions have correctly addressed the OP's question. My response to him not only addressed his situation perfectly, but is the method of choice by those of us that know and understand how to operate a milling machine, and have used that very process for the duration of our machining careers. Any lesser method leaves questions as to actual location of the spindle as it relates to the hole. He asked, clearly, "I'm locating the center of some holes .500" dia with a Starrett edge finder. The tip of the edge finder is .200. I'm just not sure if I'm doing it the BEST way." Of course, that is not the "best" way. Edge finders work great for locating from straight cut edges, but not so great from holes. Lets not go where we begin the argument that if you do this and this first, they work fine. That's not how they're intended to be used, so I'm not interested in the discussion. The *best* way is to use a dial test indicator, full stop. The level of precision is in keeping with the most rigid of requirements and requires no particular knowledge or skill. It also does not rely on any "Kentucky windage" for interpretation the way picking up a hole does with pins. This is a perfect example of "one way is superior to all other ways." Harold |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... I don't know that it is his right, or not. That he is correct, or not, is another issue. Did you mean *you're* right? Yes, I did Harold. Grasshopper, I take exception to your implication that none of the suggestions have correctly addressed the OP's question. I said that this condition is a posibility. Perhaps the OP is not simply indicating a hole that is parallel to the axis of the spindle. If you recall from my post to which you take exception: "Your right in that there is a possibility that none of the suggestions in this thread have correctly addressed the original poster's question." Dave's post (to which I was responding) will give context to my statement (which is intentionally obscure). Also, if you read my first post in this thread, you'll see I have entirely agreed with your method. Further, Google indicates that I posted that method before you did. My response to him not only addressed his situation perfectly, but is the method of choice by those of us that know and understand how to operate a milling machine, and have used that very process for the duration of our machining careers. Any lesser method leaves questions as to actual location of the spindle as it relates to the hole. Harold, did you even read my first post within this thread? He asked, clearly, "I'm locating the center of some holes .500" dia with a Starrett edge finder. The tip of the edge finder is .200. I'm just not sure if I'm doing it the BEST way." Of course, that is not the "best" way. Edge finders work great for locating from straight cut edges, but not so great from holes. Lets not go where we begin the argument that if you do this and this first, they work fine. That's not how they're intended to be used, so I'm not interested in the discussion. The *best* way is to use a dial test indicator, full stop. The level of precision is in keeping with the most rigid of requirements and requires no particular knowledge or skill. It also does not rely on any "Kentucky windage" for interpretation the way picking up a hole does with pins. This is a perfect example of "one way is superior to all other ways." I'm glad we agree. Regards, Robin |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:39:18 -0500, "Robin S."
wrote: At work I clock holes because it's fast, accurate, and intrinsicly safe (as in, no surprises). Please excuse my ignorance, but although I think I know the concept you are talking about, I'm not sure I really undrstand. would you mind explaning just how one goes about "clocking" a hole? TIA Bob S. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Scibienski" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:39:18 -0500, "Robin S." wrote: At work I clock holes because it's fast, accurate, and intrinsicly safe (as in, no surprises). Please excuse my ignorance, but although I think I know the concept you are talking about, I'm not sure I really undrstand. would you mind explaning just how one goes about "clocking" a hole? TIA Bob S. The "clock" is slang for a dial test indicator. This has a small arm with a ball point on the end that when moved will indicator the amount the tip has moved. In the case of a hole, the machinist would approximate the center of the hole by positioning the work under a pin in the chuck. Then the pin would be removed and the indicator would be inserted so the ball end will touch all around the inside of the hole under the pressure from the indicator. It is then a matter of adjusting the X and Y until the indicator reads the same all the way around. This positions the spindle directly over the hole. -- Roger Shoaf About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then they come up with this striped stuff. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Robin S." wrote in message ... "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... snip--- Also, if you read my first post in this thread, you'll see I have entirely agreed with your method. Further, Google indicates that I posted that method before you did. Sadly, It's not a contest. I am not concerned with who did what first. I'm concerned with trying to help someone that may need assistance, and doing it in such a manner that it is truly help, not another series of puzzles. Harold, did you even read my first post within this thread? Yes, I did, and it is for that reason that I am confused that you'd even suggest that no one had suggested a proper method. Using your newly acquired slang, I recognize that you, too, offered the same suggestion. I did so in clear, concise English. Your response (to Dave) was abrasive and evasive enough to give me cause to discount it, which I did. I'm not keen on ****ing contests. I'm also not keen on cute catch words for particular operations. There are readers here that may not be up to speed on slang terminology. I try to be clear, so anyone reading can properly interpret good and useful information. I am not trying to impress anyone with my knowledge or my ability to be clever. YMMV. This is a perfect example of "one way is superior to all other ways." I'm glad we agree. Chuckle!!! Harold |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...
Abandon the use of the edge finder and use a dial test indicator. Mounted in a drill chuck for easy turning, you can locate the center of your hole far more accurately than by other methods, and it's fast. A toolmaker's button here makes the job a good deal easier. If he's interested in +/- 0.001 accuracy, then an edge finder would be fine. If he wants better than than, use the indicator. But in all cases a postive feature is easier to pick up than a negative one. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... Sadly, It's not a contest. There's no reason to be sad - we're all friends here. But seriously, I was just getting cheeky with you. It's a symptom of being young (more cheekiness) Harold, did you even read my first post within this thread? Yes, I did, and it is for that reason that I am confused that you'd even suggest that no one had suggested a proper method. Using your newly acquired slang, I recognize that you, too, offered the same suggestion. I did so in clear, concise English. Your response (to Dave) was abrasive and evasive enough to give me cause to discount it, which I did. You're right. It was abrasive, and that was intentional. I have never appreciated his tone so I get a bit moody when responding to him. I'm not keen on ****ing contests. I'm also not keen on cute catch words for particular operations. There are readers here that may not be up to speed on slang terminology. I try to be clear, so anyone reading can properly interpret good and useful information. I am not trying to impress anyone with my knowledge or my ability to be clever. YMMV. I was certainly not trying to be cute or impress anyone. I find that it is easier to use "clock" as opposed to "indicate". Unfortunately (although not surprisingly), Robert S. has confirmed your position. As such, I am compelled to use proper terminology in the future, within this forum. Regards, Robin |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Robin S." wrote in message . .. "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... Sadly, It's not a contest. There's no reason to be sad - we're all friends here. But seriously, I was just getting cheeky with you. It's a symptom of being young (more cheekiness) It's not too late in the game for me to remember being young. No one was any cockier than I was. No one. However, one thing I've learned as I've grown old is it's easier to catch flies with honey than it is with vinegar, although I have no idea why in hell you'd want to catch flies. g Harold, did you even read my first post within this thread? Yes, I did, and it is for that reason that I am confused that you'd even suggest that no one had suggested a proper method. Using your newly acquired slang, I recognize that you, too, offered the same suggestion. I did so in clear, concise English. Your response (to Dave) was abrasive and evasive enough to give me cause to discount it, which I did. You're right. It was abrasive, and that was intentional. I have never appreciated his tone so I get a bit moody when responding to him. While I don't recall the details now, I, too, have had a go-round with Dave. I'm sure he means well, but it's often difficult for all of us to not see ourselves as the sole authority on processes. Dave, I'm sure, has accomplished some outstanding things in his chosen field, but may have lost site, just as most of us do, that those of us that have worked in a given trade for a life time also know a few things. It's not unusual for me to speak out against given processes. It's not because I think I'm smarter than the other guy, it's because my years of experience have taught me that certain processes present certain risks, and I don't prefer to take them. It often isn't a matter of what's right, or wrong, but one of making a choice that may have a slight edge, providing a higher degree of success, or perhaps a lower incidence of injury---and you can't, and won't---get that without paying dues---which you do by putting in years of service. I'm not keen on ****ing contests. I'm also not keen on cute catch words for particular operations. There are readers here that may not be up to speed on slang terminology. I try to be clear, so anyone reading can properly interpret good and useful information. I am not trying to impress anyone with my knowledge or my ability to be clever. YMMV. I was certainly not trying to be cute or impress anyone. I find that it is easier to use "clock" as opposed to "indicate". Unfortunately (although not surprisingly), Robert S. has confirmed your position. As such, I am compelled to use proper terminology in the future, within this forum. It doesn't hurt to keep in mind that we are a wide and varied group, posting form many countries. By keeping to the basic terminology, we don't exclude people. Some of these folks may have no other avenue to pursue, so we should do our best to try to help them, not further confuse them. Even with my long years in the shop, I still hear strange terms to describe things machine shop related----which I attribute to being a regional kind of thing. It's been an interesting experience for me to follow a news group that is comprised of a wide cross section of people. Terminology in particular has been amusing to me. Two words have been used to death, and are not used in keeping with their intended meaning. One of them is "tram", which has been *******ized from the days of steam engines when a tramming tool was used to set timing. It had nothing to do with the use of an indicator. The other is swarf. The true definition is not the same as chips. When you buy a CNC, it may include a chip removal system, but I have yet to read of a swarf removing system, although you may find that a grinding machine may offer swarf control. And so it goes- Harold |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...
The other is swarf. The true definition is not the same as chips. When you buy a CNC, it may include a chip removal system, but I have yet to read of a swarf removing system, although you may find that a grinding machine may offer swarf control. We've done this one before Harold. The term is used differently in different parts of the world. If you were from Ireland (as was the instructor in one of my classes) you would indeed use the terms 'swarf' and 'chips' interchangeably. Swarf also has meanings beyond the metalworking fields, btw. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says... The other is swarf. The true definition is not the same as chips. When you buy a CNC, it may include a chip removal system, but I have yet to read of a swarf removing system, although you may find that a grinding machine may offer swarf control. We've done this one before Harold. The term is used differently in different parts of the world. If you were from Ireland (as was the instructor in one of my classes) you would indeed use the terms 'swarf' and 'chips' interchangeably. Swarf also has meanings beyond the metalworking fields, btw. Jim Yeah, I think I alluded to that when I mentioned that we are a group posting from many countries. Ever looked under your hood? In the UK, one would raise the "bonnet" to do that. g Harold |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...
Yeah, I think I alluded to that when I mentioned that we are a group posting from many countries. Ever looked under your hood? In the UK, one would raise the "bonnet" to do that. g Heck Harold, in Peekskill, we *live* in the hood! Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
........................... It's been an interesting experience for me to follow a news group that is comprised of a wide cross section of people. Terminology in particular has been amusing to me. Two words have been used to death, and are not used in keeping with their intended meaning. One of them is "tram", which has been *******ized from the days of steam engines when a tramming tool was used to set timing. It had nothing to do with the use of an indicator. FWIW, setting the timing on a steam engine, was always to best effect, combined with use of an indicator.. The other is swarf. The true definition is not the same as chips. When you buy a CNC, it may include a chip removal system, but I have yet to read of a swarf removing system, although you may find that a grinding machine may offer swarf control. Ya reading too many grinding manuals, Harold. :-) With modern carbide tooling and pecking cycles, chips are the most efficient metal removal, the swarf of yesteryear has no place in the cnc world. However there are plenty of companies still offering machinery for the removal, conveying and baling of swarf. And so it goes- Harold Tom |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says... Yeah, I think I alluded to that when I mentioned that we are a group posting from many countries. Ever looked under your hood? In the UK, one would raise the "bonnet" to do that. g Heck Harold, in Peekskill, we *live* in the hood! Jim G H |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom" wrote in message ... snip- FWIW, setting the timing on a steam engine, was always to best effect, combined with use of an indicator.. I keep struggling with the vision of a guy setting up the engine, using his 3" travel Starrett long travel indicator, circa 1880. Somehow it doesn't come together. g I was thinking more on the lines of the tramming tool that was provided with an engine for reassembly after maintenance in the field, applied to the punch marks created when the engine was originally assembled. I can't help but think the name for the tool was a result of its appearance, strongly resembling a trammel, or beam divider. I'm at a loss to explain how the term has come to being applied to "dialing in" a machine. The first I ever heard it used in that way was here on RCM, that after spending over 40 years in the shop. I think that's part of the charm of interacting with such a vast group as this------to see and hear how others use words, and the meaning they may have in other countries. All bonnets are not created equally. Harold |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom" wrote in message ... Harold & Susan Vordos wrote: "Tom" wrote in message ... snip- FWIW, setting the timing on a steam engine, was always to best effect, combined with use of an indicator.. I keep struggling with the vision of a guy setting up the engine, using his 3" travel Starrett long travel indicator, circa 1880. Somehow it doesn't come together. g I was thinking more on the lines of the tramming tool that was provided with an engine for reassembly after maintenance in the field, applied to the punch marks created when the engine was originally assembled. I can't help but think the name for the tool was a result of its appearance, strongly resembling a trammel, or beam divider. I'm at a loss to explain how the term has come to being applied to "dialing in" a machine. The first I ever heard it used in that way was here on RCM, that after spending over 40 years in the shop. I think that's part of the charm of interacting with such a vast group as this------to see and hear how others use words, and the meaning they may have in other countries. All bonnets are not created equally. Harold 3" travel Starrett long travel indicator? Yeah right! :-) I do think you did mention indicator, only? :-) All hoods weren't the same after Al Capone Tom Chuckle!! Harold |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message ... snip- FWIW, setting the timing on a steam engine, was always to best effect, combined with use of an indicator.. I keep struggling with the vision of a guy setting up the engine, using his 3" travel Starrett long travel indicator, circa 1880. Somehow it doesn't come together. g I was thinking more on the lines of the tramming tool that was provided with an engine for reassembly after maintenance in the field, applied to the punch marks created when the engine was originally assembled. I can't help but think the name for the tool was a result of its appearance, strongly resembling a trammel, or beam divider. I'm at a loss to explain how the term has come to being applied to "dialing in" a machine. The first I ever heard it used in that way was here on RCM, that after spending over 40 years in the shop. I think that's part of the charm of interacting with such a vast group as this------to see and hear how others use words, and the meaning they may have in other countries. All bonnets are not created equally. Harold 3" travel Starrett long travel indicator? Yeah right! :-) I do think you did mention indicator, only? :-) All hoods weren't the same after Al Capone Tom |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Dead center/live center lathe question | Woodworking | |||
Enlarging a hole for a de | Home Repair | |||
Jacobs Chuck on Jet Mini Lathe | Woodturning | |||
No space in the load center | Home Repair | |||
Top dead center finder | Metalworking |