"Trevor Jones" wrote in message
news:AaQ9j.23209$UZ4.1996@edtnps89...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
"Trevor Jones" wrote in message
news:0ME9j.16422$UZ4.14560@edtnps89...
snip---


Nor of much practical use. It would not serve well for aligning a
tailstock, and for several reasons. Nice project for the student,
though.

I agree. Not much practical use at all. It was a grinding exercise.

Before I leave my present job, though, it is my intent to grind this one
to be parallel over it's full length. Just to get it done.

I can't think of one process in the shop that is more rewarding than to
accomplish fine work and have it turn out "perfect". Grinding is such
work, when in the hands of a skilled craftsman.

I fully understand your desire to correct the minor flaws. To ease your
conscience, unless you ground the shaft on a precision cylindrical grinder,
the results you achieved are in keeping with what I'd expect. I was
cornered on one job I bid when I didn't have a cylindrical grinder at my
disposal, although the shop from which I subcontracted had offered me their
universal grinder, which became the basis of quoting the job.

It was a tool & cutter type, not a cylindrical, although cylindrical work
could be performed. The parts in question were components for a
helicopter, with stringent tolerances. On a cylindrical grinder, they
would have been routine. On the cutter grinder, I fought taper and
diameter from beginning to end. Mind you, I am no stranger to precision
grinding. Using the wrong machine for such a task lowers you to the
level of using a toolpost grinder on a lathe, which I do not endorse.

For the most part, I see test bars as part of the "smoke-n-mirrors" that
get waved about to "prove" how accurately one must work to be a machinist.
That has certainly been my experience, anyway.

My observations, since visiting sites such as this, are that those that many
that don't understand the real issues of machining are caught up with
numbers, and are endlessly trying to prove that their less than adequate
machine is capable of performing at a level of serious industrial equipment.
It is a tall order, for the precision isn't there, not even when the machine
is new. That's not to say that the machine isn't worthy of being owned,
just that expectations should be lowered, and energy devoted to mastering
the concepts of machining. A fine machine tool in the hands of a fool is
just that. He will still be a fool. With talent and skill, good work can
come from lesser equipment, even with reliability. The smoke-n-mirrors
may fool those that are less informed, but it will rarely dazzle anyone with
experience.

To be a machinist is more than making chips. If a person can't start with
a print, choose the right machine, make the setup, produce the necessary
parts, reliably, to print, in reasonable time, without supervision, they
should not claim the title "machinist". No more than a hack that burns
rod should claim the title of weldor, or the common man that bandages a cut
finger should claim the title doctor.

Harold