"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:47:24 -0700, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
snip----

Now..if the machinist stacked (4) 3/16" radiused cutters on a
horizontal miller...they could be wacked out in just a few seconds per
side. Which should bring the cost down.



Gunner

Blink. Blink.

Am I missing something here, Gunner? How are four cutters, side by
side,
going to cut flutes that, as I understood it, were spaced around a
cylinder?
Do you want to give that more thought? g

Harold


Blink blink indeed. Brain fart on my part. I was thinking square
cross section for some reason...sigh

Mea culpa.

Though..a single such cutter may be faster than a endmill.

Gunner, suffering from brain farts
Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

Oh, yeah! Much faster, and much harder to break. That's why I didn't
suggest a ball end mill when I posted my proposed method. This job screams
for a multi-toothed cutter, even if it's nothing more than a Woodruff
cutter, modified with a radius. If it was for one piece only, no big
deal. You grit your teeth and get through the project, but when you have
multiples of parts to machine and you can trim minutes from each part, it's
well worth the effort. Besides, it often saves your sanity.

Harold

In article , Don Foreman says...

If you asked a woodworker to make a "thing" that's about 1" square on
the ends, kinda round in the middle with some lengthwise flutes in
the round part, I bet that's all the specification she'd need to
make it.

She bids on the job, delivers 100 parts in pine.

"Oh. I thought that price was for making them
out of walnut. I'm not paying for those."

:^)

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 30 Jul 2005 06:48:49 -0700, the opaque jim rozen
clearly wrote:

In article , Don Foreman says...

If you asked a woodworker to make a "thing" that's about 1" square on
the ends, kinda round in the middle with some lengthwise flutes in
the round part, I bet that's all the specification she'd need to
make it.

She bids on the job, delivers 100 parts in pine.

"Oh. I thought that price was for making them
out of walnut. I'm not paying for those."

BTDT and the shaft was not too comfortable.

Now I ALWAYS get a -signed- agreement and half the bux up-front.


--
Guns don't kill people. Rappers do!
-----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Rap-free Website Development

On 30 Jul 2005 06:48:49 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Don Foreman says...

If you asked a woodworker to make a "thing" that's about 1" square on
the ends, kinda round in the middle with some lengthwise flutes in
the round part, I bet that's all the specification she'd need to
make it.

She bids on the job, delivers 100 parts in pine.

"Oh. I thought that price was for making them
out of walnut. I'm not paying for those."

See previous post. Buyer agrees to pay for whatever is delivered
that matches the description, whether or not it matches his mental
image that only he can see.
"Do and review" cycle could be an acceptable alternative to a drawing
if each "do" is paid for.

Initial bid: $15 per piece. For final cost ... there's Mastercard!

In article , Don Foreman says...

See previous post. Buyer agrees to pay for whatever is delivered
that matches the description, whether or not it matches his mental
image that only he can see.

There's an inherent contradiction in the above statement Don.

"Matches the description" and 'matches or not the mental
image' don't go together. This is why specs for parts are so
carefully ritten - so that the buyer's mental image matches
the fabricator's mental image, matches the print, and matches
the actual deliverable.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

SteveB wrote:
How much would it cost for a garage machinists to take a
piece of 1" square rod 6" long
leave the ends like they are one inch on each end
turn down the middle to 7/8" diameter
put lengthwise flutes in it
So it looked like an antique wood column when done?
....
Can be hot rolled steel, can even be scrap, just has to
look nice when finished. Will be painted.
and in a later post,
What I started out was recreating a wood column. Square base,
cylindrical center. I have seen some with flutes. I have
seen some with a little ring around the bottom and at the
top of the cylinder dividing the cylinder and square parts.

After finding out the flutes would be the complicated
costly addition, that idea is 86ed.

There is no tolerance to speak of. They are only decorative,
and I would estimate that so long as they looked alike, they
could be off a lot to a machinist.

It isn't clear what you want, without a drawing or any
clear-cut indications of materials (Does "scrap" mean that
wood, aluminum, plastic, clay are ok? Or just steel?) but
one thing you might consider is buying some fluted brass
curtain rods http://doityourself.com/store/6416648.htm
(about $79 for 6 rods, 30') and cutting off 6" pieces.
Materials would run you at least $1.10 per column. If the
square capital or base is vital, your costs would go up
a little or a lot, depending on how you stick things
together. For example, if you glue 3/4"-long blocks
of 1"x1" bar on the ends of a 4.5"-long rod, pretty
cheap. If you cut the 1"x1" blocks a little longer
and turn a round on the end to stick inside the rod,
labor would go up a bunch. If you could live with
hex-shaped capitals or bases, buy a few pounds of
short 5/8 or 3/4" bolts, etc.
-jiw

Gunner wrote:

No one could give him an educated ball park estimate based on his
discription. He in effect put the question out.."how high is up?"

G

Gunner

I've always liked Heinlein's "How long is a piece of rope?"

David

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

No one could give him an educated ball park estimate based on his
discription. He in effect put the question out.."how high is up?"

G

Gunner

I've always liked Heinlein's "How long is a piece of rope?"

David

How big is a rock?

Harold

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:47:44 GMT, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

No one could give him an educated ball park estimate based on his
discription. He in effect put the question out.."how high is up?"

G

Gunner

I've always liked Heinlein's "How long is a piece of rope?"

David

Excellent!!!

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

Gunner wrote:

No one could give him an educated ball park estimate based on his
discription. He in effect put the question out.."how high is up?"

G

Gunner

Ask a painter "How much to paint a bedroom"? Specs: Oh yea, it's a
big room!
Ask a plumber "How much to fix my pipes"? Specs: Lots of pipes in
basement.
Ask an electrician "How much to wire my garage"? Specs: It's a 2 car
garage.

John Normile

On 30 Jul 2005 10:34:00 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Don Foreman says...

See previous post. Buyer agrees to pay for whatever is delivered
that matches the description, whether or not it matches his mental
image that only he can see.

There's an inherent contradiction in the above statement Don.

"Matches the description" and 'matches or not the mental
image' don't go together.

Sure they do. The mental image (or a drawing depicting it) would
contain much more information than a brief description. There are
many ways to meet the limited description that may not be what the
asker initially imagined -- but might still be acceptable or even
preferable. Loose specs allow the imagination of the fabricator to
come into play, sometimes with very interesting results.

I think that's one of the differences between a journeyman machinist
and a really good modelmaker: the ability to make something that does
what was wanted, based on a description by someone who hasn't the
slightest idea of how to make what they want. I've known some really
good modelmakers! Part of that skill and talent is knowing how to
"interview" the requestor to figure out what he really wants. Any
sketches or drawings made are usually made by the modelmaker.

This is why specs for parts are so
carefully ritten - so that the buyer's mental image matches
the fabricator's mental image, matches the print, and matches
the actual deliverable.

QED. Now remove the constraint of matching mental image, merely
meeting the rather limited description. The difference is that the
first iteration may not be "right" even if it meets the description.

Perhaps the buyer only has a vague mental image (and limited
imagination), would need to see "something physical" to better
understand what he wants -- and/or what he doesn't want. Then he
can say, "like that, except....." That's fine if the fabricator
has the patience ..... and is paid fairly for his time & materials
if doing it for money.

Not all design is done in a straight-forward monotonic fashion.
Trial-and-error, "do-and-review" is not efficient, but it does work.
Sometimes it's even fun if efficiency is not an issue. I don't like
doing it for others, but I do it for myself now and then: start with
a vague idea, make something to better understand what I really want
-- and don't want.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:33:37 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


No one could give him an educated ball park estimate based on his
discription. He in effect put the question out.."how high is up?"

G

No one would give him a fixed-price estimate to "build to print" --
because there is no print. A time & materials quote is more
appropriate in such circumstances, with perhaps an estimate
of cost for the first model, or perhaps a drawing of the fabricator's
vision of what it might be like and how it might be made. He needs
design help as well as fabrication help, just doesn't realize that.

Where is it written that a fabricator can't employ a little
imagination and creativity? The tricky part is getting paid for it.