"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message ...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
Awl--

Volume-wise, of course.
Opinions?

I read some time ago somewhere that it was drilling.

This surprised me, as I thought the drill point, being essentially zero sfm, would act as a limiting factor.
Intuitively I figgered it would be lathe turning, as the tool is moving along a large surface, so chip removal is almost a
non-issue, and coolant is "more effective" than it would be on a buried cutter, and here the tool is essentially never buried,
etc.

But mebbe it could be something like a large-kerf circular saw blade?
Mebbe a saw blade moving along like a Dumont grinder on a lathe??


If you're not going to cheat and use a saw, or a roto-broach, or something that removes metal without turning it completely
into chips, then the answer is in the fundamentals. To wit:

For any tool, assuming an optimum geometry and edge configuration, and for any material to which that tool is applied, there's
some functional maximum chip load. That chip load, multiplied by the width of cut, determines how much metal a single tooth or
flute can remove in any given time. The total number of teeth or flutes, all doing the same thing, determine the overall metal
removal rate of which the tool is capable.

So, you need good cutting edges, lots of cutting edges, and, of course, the power and rigidity to drive them. Assuming that
the comparisons of various tool types use the same horsepower and machinery, it stands to reason that the tool with the biggest
number of teeth would always win the game.

However...

Drills, on the other hand, can have multiple cutting edges, which spend ALL their time making chips (no interruptions like a
milling or sawing tool), and have the special, added, unique advantage of creating only torsional and axial forces. Axial forces
are easy to handle. Basic mechanics just works that way. And torsion is easy too, because it's automatically and necessarily
self-balancing (unless you're silly enough to make your drills so that their arrangment of cutting edges isn't radially
symetrical - but nobody does that, so it's a moot drill point.)

Wherefore, at the most fundamental level (and at functional levels too, most of the time), drills are inherently better able to
make chips than other kinds of tools. The fact that they work in holes can be a problem; but nobody said that the comparisons had
to include real deep holes, or inadequate coolant supplies, or anything like that.

So drills win. Simple as that.

KG


The drill is the greatest efficient tool of material removal

John