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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Footy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Baker
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Carl Ijames
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Anthony
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Robin S.
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Harold & Susan Vordos
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Brian Lawson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Dave Baker
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Mtlgd
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Robin S.
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Harold & Susan Vordos
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Robin S.
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Robert Scibienski
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Roger Shoaf
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Harold & Susan Vordos
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Robin S.
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Harold & Susan Vordos
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Harold & Susan Vordos
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Harold & Susan Vordos
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Harold & Susan Vordos
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Harold & Susan Vordos
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dead center/live center lathe question R.H. Woodworking 10 October 18th 04 08:32 PM
Enlarging a hole for a de barry martin Home Repair 1 October 14th 04 03:12 AM
Jacobs Chuck on Jet Mini Lathe AWood70928 Woodturning 27 June 30th 04 08:29 PM
No space in the load center [email protected] Home Repair 3 April 24th 04 06:34 AM
Top dead center finder Ted Edwards Metalworking 4 February 13th 04 07:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"