I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.
Looking for suggestions as to names which might be used as search
terms or links to sites that would be appropriate.

Also, I am not remembering the names that were involved in the
creation of the first NC machines back in the late forties/early
fifties. I know that the info is back in my head somewhere but it is
not coming forward. Help would be appreciated!

I don't want togfive the kids everything obviously but I do need to
give them enough to get started It is tough to do research on a
subject when you don't know enough about it to even know what
questions to ask.

Thanks for your help!

Errol Groff
Instructor, Machine Tool Department
H.H. Ellis Tech
613 Upper Maple Street
Danielson, CT 06239

860 774 8511 x1811

http://pages.cthome.net/errol.groff/

http://newenglandmodelengineeringsociety.org/

In article ,
says...
I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.
Looking for suggestions as to names which might be used as search
terms or links to sites that would be appropriate.

Also, I am not remembering the names that were involved in the
creation of the first NC machines back in the late forties/early
fifties. I know that the info is back in my head somewhere but it is
not coming forward. Help would be appreciated!


Giddings & Lewis is the first that comes to mind, perhaps
Warner & Swasey.

Giddings & Lewis claims they were first in this company
history.

http://www.glcastings.com/ne/basenav/dateline.asp

Ned Simmons

http://www.lathes.co.uk/page21.html
this is a good site

Take a look at the American Precision Museum in Vermont web site

http://www.americanprecision.org/Default2.html

Hate to mention this, but we received word last week that G&L's foundry is
closing permanently.

There is some possibility that our foundry would get some of the work. I
work at the former Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. (or Milacron) foundry, now
known as Cast-Fab Technologies, Inc.

If you'd like to see some historical photos of the machine tool industry,
please go to:

http://memory.loc.gov/

Click on the search link and type into the search bar "Milling machines and
machine castings" WITH the quotes. You will get a hit for a number of
photos of the foundry in 1942. The foundry is not identified, but it is the
Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. foundry. The reason it was not identified is
because it was early on during WW2 and there were fears that sabotage or
bombing would take place so the foundry name was kept secret.

Next week the auctioneers will be at the machine shop and everything must
go. The foundry is the only part left still producing. Of course we use
electric furnaces instead of the cupolas and furan sand instead of green
sand but the building itself is still the same.

Mark Fields


"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.
Looking for suggestions as to names which might be used as search
terms or links to sites that would be appropriate.

Also, I am not remembering the names that were involved in the
creation of the first NC machines back in the late forties/early
fifties. I know that the info is back in my head somewhere but it is
not coming forward. Help would be appreciated!


Giddings & Lewis is the first that comes to mind, perhaps
Warner & Swasey.

Giddings & Lewis claims they were first in this company
history.

http://www.glcastings.com/ne/basenav/dateline.asp

Ned Simmons

Great link, Mark! I am wasting a lot of time looking around in this archive.
Thanks! :-)

Al

"Mark Fields" wrote in message
...
Hate to mention this, but we received word last week that G&L's foundry is
closing permanently.

There is some possibility that our foundry would get some of the work. I
work at the former Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. (or Milacron) foundry,
now
known as Cast-Fab Technologies, Inc.

If you'd like to see some historical photos of the machine tool industry,
please go to:

http://memory.loc.gov/

Click on the search link and type into the search bar "Milling machines
and
machine castings" WITH the quotes. You will get a hit for a number of
photos of the foundry in 1942. The foundry is not identified, but it is
the
Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. foundry. The reason it was not identified
is
because it was early on during WW2 and there were fears that sabotage or
bombing would take place so the foundry name was kept secret.

Mark Fields wrote:

Hate to mention this, but we received word last week that G&L's foundry is
closing permanently.

There is some possibility that our foundry would get some of the work. I
work at the former Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. (or Milacron) foundry, now
known as Cast-Fab Technologies, Inc.

If you'd like to see some historical photos of the machine tool industry,
please go to:

http://memory.loc.gov/

Click on the search link and type into the search bar "Milling machines and
machine castings" WITH the quotes. You will get a hit for a number of
photos of the foundry in 1942. The foundry is not identified, but it is the
Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. foundry. The reason it was not identified is
because it was early on during WW2 and there were fears that sabotage or
bombing would take place so the foundry name was kept secret.

Next week the auctioneers will be at the machine shop and everything must
go. The foundry is the only part left still producing. Of course we use
electric furnaces instead of the cupolas and furan sand instead of green
sand but the building itself is still the same.

Mark Fields

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.
Looking for suggestions as to names which might be used as search
terms or links to sites that would be appropriate.

Also, I am not remembering the names that were involved in the
creation of the first NC machines back in the late forties/early
fifties. I know that the info is back in my head somewhere but it is
not coming forward. Help would be appreciated!


Giddings & Lewis is the first that comes to mind, perhaps
Warner & Swasey.

Giddings & Lewis claims they were first in this company
history.

http://www.glcastings.com/ne/basenav/dateline.asp

Ned Simmons


I was rummaging around on that link for a couple of hours til I fell
asleep at the computer. A lot of those parts looked familiar since I
have rebuilt a couple of those Mills. The spur gears look like the
table feed gears and the bevel gear may be the one that supplied power
to the quill feed. Those old machines still do the job. Not too many
CNC's can remove metal as fast as a #5 vertical.

Very good site. Thanks.

John

Ned Simmons wrote in message ...

Giddings & Lewis claims they were first in this company
history.

http://www.glcastings.com/ne/basenav/dateline.asp



Jesus Christ, now G&L's joined the Liars' Club :-(
It's documented all over the place; M.I.T. and John
Parsons built the first functional NC machine. It ran
in 1952. I even have a jpeg (somewhere) of an ashtray
made on the thing. It used a Cincinnati Hydrotel for
the base machine. Parsons-Bendix-Dynapath-Autocon was
the first maker of ANY nc control. All this is discussed
in any of the early books on NC ... you don't have any
of those ?

As for Battleboob's concerns, perhaps if they researched
the *ideas* behind revolutionary machine tools instead of
the boring/useless 'who when where' aspect of it ? I am
continually amazed by the number of 'CNC machinists' who
don't have a clue about basic machining functions and
processes.

I don't read this as a lie at all. It's all in how you read things. I
believe they are telling the history of G&L, not the history of machine
tools.

Therefore they are stating they built "THEIR" first NC machine tool in 1955.

It would be different had they put "invented the first NC machine tool".

Mark Fields


"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...
Ned Simmons wrote in message
...

Giddings & Lewis claims they were first in this company
history.

http://www.glcastings.com/ne/basenav/dateline.asp



Jesus Christ, now G&L's joined the Liars' Club :-(
It's documented all over the place; M.I.T. and John
Parsons built the first functional NC machine. It ran
in 1952. I even have a jpeg (somewhere) of an ashtray
made on the thing. It used a Cincinnati Hydrotel for
the base machine. Parsons-Bendix-Dynapath-Autocon was
the first maker of ANY nc control. All this is discussed
in any of the early books on NC ... you don't have any
of those ?

As for Battleboob's concerns, perhaps if they researched
the *ideas* behind revolutionary machine tools instead of
the boring/useless 'who when where' aspect of it ? I am
continually amazed by the number of 'CNC machinists' who
don't have a clue about basic machining functions and
processes.

Mark Fields wrote:
I don't read this as a lie at all. It's all in how you read things. I
believe they are telling the history of G&L, not the history of machine
tools.

Therefore they are stating they built "THEIR" first NC machine tool in 1955.

It would be different had they put "invented the first NC machine tool".


Yeah, it's a lie. The beginnings of NC/CNC were done by a couple
guys in a tool shop in Traverse City, Michigan. They made charts of X/Y
coordinates for movements on a Bridgeport mill. Then one guy stood in
front of the machine with the saddle handle (Y axis), while another
stood at the side of the machine with the table handle (X axis), and
they made simultaneous moves in a step by step fashion.'

This wasn't NC machining, of course; but it was a beginning. The
two guys in the tool shop (Parsons might have been one of them; but the
names escape me at the moment), showed their idea to the defense
department as a way to improve and streamline the manufacture of
military stuff. That led to the idea being taken up by MIT, with DOD
funding, where the two guys with charts and handles were replaced by
punched cards, crude calculating machines with relays and vacuum tubes,
and electric motors. THAT was the first NC machine.

If the iron that this idea was first applied to happened to be a G&L,
or a Bridgeport, or whatever, it seems to me that that was totally
incidendtal. G&L not only didn't invent it; but they were actually
pretty slow to do anything that ended up being sold as a useful machine.

Based on what I've read, heard, looked at in museums, and seen with
my own eyes (I'm old, you know), G&L didn't invent NC or CNC machining
any more than Al Gore invented the internet.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
...

Yeah, it's a lie. The beginnings of NC/CNC were done by a couple
guys in a tool shop in Traverse City, Michigan.

That was Parsons Corp., Traverse City. They were producing helicopter-blade
templets with the aid of an IBM 602A Multiplier, calculating positions and
then setting the machine to those positions by hand.

They made charts of X/Y
coordinates for movements on a Bridgeport mill.

A Swiss jig borer, actually.

This wasn't NC machining, of course; but it was a beginning. The
two guys in the tool shop (Parsons might have been one of them; but the
names escape me at the moment), showed their idea to the defense
department as a way to improve and streamline the manufacture of
military stuff.

Integral-rib wing skins were the items that provoked the whole idea of using
electronic control, but the original Air Force demonstrations were on a
helicopter blade. Then demos were done in late 1948 on a 16-in.-wingspan
wing model with a tapered chord. The demos were done at Snyder Corp. in
Detroit. The Air Force granted the contract on June 15, 1949.

That led to the idea being taken up by MIT, with DOD
funding, where the two guys with charts and handles were replaced by
punched cards, crude calculating machines with relays and vacuum tubes,
and electric motors. THAT was the first NC machine.

That's pretty much it. It should be pointed out that it was controlled by a
computer, not by a simple logic controller, so it was also the first CNC
machine.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

As for Battleboob's concerns, perhaps if they researched
the *ideas* behind revolutionary machine tools instead of
the boring/useless 'who when where' aspect of it ? I am
continually amazed by the number of 'CNC machinists' who
don't have a clue about basic machining functions and
processes.

Ever consider that because the future of machining in the U.S.
is so dim that studying the past feels much better than studying
what's current ???


jon








"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...
Ned Simmons wrote in message
...

Giddings & Lewis claims they were first in this company
history.

http://www.glcastings.com/ne/basenav/dateline.asp



Jesus Christ, now G&L's joined the Liars' Club :-(
It's documented all over the place; M.I.T. and John
Parsons built the first functional NC machine. It ran
in 1952. I even have a jpeg (somewhere) of an ashtray
made on the thing. It used a Cincinnati Hydrotel for
the base machine. Parsons-Bendix-Dynapath-Autocon was
the first maker of ANY nc control. All this is discussed
in any of the early books on NC ... you don't have any
of those ?

As for Battleboob's concerns, perhaps if they researched
the *ideas* behind revolutionary machine tools instead of
the boring/useless 'who when where' aspect of it ? I am
continually amazed by the number of 'CNC machinists' who
don't have a clue about basic machining functions and
processes.

Errol Groff wrote:

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.

Errol:

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a interesting
subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:59:48 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

And I couldn't agree more. BUT, I am instructing in a vo-tech system
that is run, largely, by academic types and there are things that we
are told to do and ways in which to do them. This sort of assignment
is one of those things.

Errol

"Errol Groff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:59:48 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

And I couldn't agree more. BUT, I am instructing in a vo-tech system
that is run, largely, by academic types and there are things that we
are told to do and ways in which to do them. This sort of assignment
is one of those things.

Errol

Start with Leonardo DaVinci?

In article , Errol Groff says...

And I couldn't agree more. BUT, I am instructing in a vo-tech system
that is run, largely, by academic types and there are things that we
are told to do and ways in which to do them. This sort of assignment
is one of those things.

You have a clear eye on "who's paying the bills" and
if that person says to do something, they don't really
want to hear how it's so much better to do something
else. Acceptable answers a

a) it's done, or

b) I'll have it done by X.

Regards - Jim

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

Errol Groff wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:59:48 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

And I couldn't agree more. BUT, I am instructing in a vo-tech system
that is run, largely, by academic types and there are things that we
are told to do and ways in which to do them. This sort of assignment
is one of those things.


Errol:

Ahh, I see. So you have educational constraints just as job shops have
machining constraints spelled out by the customer. g

Here are a couple of thread titles with subject matter that touched on
the history of CNC:

"history of CNC"

"History Channel /Cincinnati Museum/ machine tool history"



--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Hey Bob...

When I first stood in front of a Bridgeport mill I thought it was just built
by a big company. I didn't realize it was designed and built by a person
like you or me. It's nice to believe a machinist can build something as
cool as a milling machine. You get that feel by reading the history of
inventions and their origins.

Also, history gives you a prospective of where the technology is going in
the future. By viewing the origin of how an invention was conceived, then
where it has come today, it can help us find the direction it will go in the
future. If you have an idea where things will go in the future you can make
plans to your advantage. *Smile

Regards,

Stan-

BottleBob wrote:

Errol Groff wrote:

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.

Errol:

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a interesting
subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


Errol,

that topic could be covered in another class. Maybe make it part of the
english curriculum. Just as the math classes should be oriented to
machining. It would make you job easier if you only had to fill their
brains with the actual machine operations.

John

that topic could be covered in another class. Maybe make
it part of the english curriculum.

IMO, this would be the right approach. Those interested in
machining attend a english class that has been tailored to
their curriculum.

Just as the math classes should be oriented to machining.

Again, agreed. Wish I had a choice like this when I was in
high school.

Excellent post... almost makes up for your short sighted
anti-union one.

LOL

:)

jon









"john" wrote in message
...
BottleBob wrote:

Errol Groff wrote:

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.

Errol:

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a
interesting
subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here,
I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


Errol,

that topic could be covered in another class. Maybe make it part of the
english curriculum. Just as the math classes should be oriented to
machining. It would make you job easier if you only had to fill their
brains with the actual machine operations.

John

I missed the OP about learning other things instead of just the
practical side of machining... I have to throw in my two cents, FWIW.
I'm taking an 8-9 month machining course. In addition to the practical,
hands-on stuff we also have:
-8 full days of CAD - spread out over a month
-half a day of math per week - our book is Mathematics for Machine
Technology, so we're actually learning things we'll be applying in the shop
-half a day of communications class per week. This is the one that a
lot of the people in our class have trouble realizing the value of.
We've been covering positive attitudes, teamwork, time management,
presentations, and computer skills (email, word processing, etc. CAD
and CNC programming aren't covered in communications). Not really
anything you need to be a good (or even excellent) machinist, but I've
met a few machinists before I started school who would have been easier
to work with if they'd learned a few of those things and followed them.
(I hope it goes without saying - that's not just limited to
machinists... there are difficult people everywhere)
-We also have a machining textbook that we're supposed to work through
and videos to watch. We spend a couple of hours a week of classroom
time on this, working at our own pace.

CAD, math, and the textbook I've been having no troubles with.
Communications class is driving me nuts. I understand the usefulness of
it all, and I appreciate having the chance to learn the things we're
covering. I'm just feeling a bit down on it because I've got an oral
presentation coming up tomorrow.

Yeah, and I wish we'd had a shop program in high school too. Guess it
wouldn't have mattered much for me anyway because I had no idea what a
machine shop even was until i'd been out of high school for a few years.


chem

jon banquer wrote:

that topic could be covered in another class. Maybe make
it part of the english curriculum.


IMO, this would be the right approach. Those interested in
machining attend a english class that has been tailored to
their curriculum.


Just as the math classes should be oriented to machining.


Again, agreed. Wish I had a choice like this when I was in
high school.

Excellent post... almost makes up for your short sighted
anti-union one.

LOL

:)

jon









"john" wrote in message
...

BottleBob wrote:

Errol Groff wrote:

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.

Errol:

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a

interesting

subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here,

I'm

just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


Errol,

that topic could be covered in another class. Maybe make it part of the
english curriculum. Just as the math classes should be oriented to
machining. It would make you job easier if you only had to fill their
brains with the actual machine operations.

John




--

www.xanga.com/chemgurl

In article , chem says...

CAD, math, and the textbook I've been having no troubles with.
Communications class is driving me nuts. I understand the usefulness of
it all, and I appreciate having the chance to learn the things we're
covering. I'm just feeling a bit down on it because I've got an oral
presentation coming up tomorrow.

Sounds like a very aggressive program. Where's the school?

Actually the oral presentations can be fun if you don't take
them too seriously. They say the best way is to imagine your
audience with no clothes on.

=8-O

Works best only with certain audiences.

Don't over-prepare.

Jim

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

That sounds like a good course Chem.

Best of luck to you.

Regards,

Stan-

"chem" wrote in message
...
I missed the OP about learning other things instead of just the
practical side of machining... I have to throw in my two cents, FWIW.
I'm taking an 8-9 month machining course. In addition to the practical,
hands-on stuff we also have:
-8 full days of CAD - spread out over a month
-half a day of math per week - our book is Mathematics for Machine
Technology, so we're actually learning things we'll be applying in the
shop
-half a day of communications class per week. This is the one that a
lot of the people in our class have trouble realizing the value of.
We've been covering positive attitudes, teamwork, time management,
presentations, and computer skills (email, word processing, etc. CAD
and CNC programming aren't covered in communications). Not really
anything you need to be a good (or even excellent) machinist, but I've
met a few machinists before I started school who would have been easier
to work with if they'd learned a few of those things and followed them.
(I hope it goes without saying - that's not just limited to
machinists... there are difficult people everywhere)
-We also have a machining textbook that we're supposed to work through
and videos to watch. We spend a couple of hours a week of classroom
time on this, working at our own pace.

CAD, math, and the textbook I've been having no troubles with.
Communications class is driving me nuts. I understand the usefulness of
it all, and I appreciate having the chance to learn the things we're
covering. I'm just feeling a bit down on it because I've got an oral
presentation coming up tomorrow.

Yeah, and I wish we'd had a shop program in high school too. Guess it
wouldn't have mattered much for me anyway because I had no idea what a
machine shop even was until i'd been out of high school for a few years.


chem

jon banquer wrote:

that topic could be covered in another class. Maybe make
it part of the english curriculum.


IMO, this would be the right approach. Those interested in
machining attend a english class that has been tailored to
their curriculum.


Just as the math classes should be oriented to machining.


Again, agreed. Wish I had a choice like this when I was in
high school.

Excellent post... almost makes up for your short sighted
anti-union one.

LOL

:)

jon









"john" wrote in message
...

BottleBob wrote:

Errol Groff wrote:

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.

Errol:

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a

interesting

subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here,

I'm

just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


Errol,

that topic could be covered in another class. Maybe make it part of the
english curriculum. Just as the math classes should be oriented to
machining. It would make you job easier if you only had to fill their
brains with the actual machine operations.

John




--

www.xanga.com/chemgurl

Just in case it helps any, you seem to communicate pretty well. And
you've obviously figured out that being a machinist means working with
people, and not just machines. That's excellent.

Don't sweat the oral presentation. In fact, don't bother DOING a
"presentation" at all. Just talk. Just say what you want to say, as if
you were saying it to friend. Enjoy the chance to share what you've
been studying or preparing, and invite everybody else to enjoy it with
you. They will, if you give them a chance.

And stop back here as often as you can. Communication takes
practice too, just like sharpening a drill or running a CAD system.
And, if you don't mind the fact that some of us get crazy and cranky
once in a while, you might just find the group to be a fun place to hang
out.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

chem wrote:
I missed the OP about learning other things instead of just the
practical side of machining... I have to throw in my two cents, FWIW.
I'm taking an 8-9 month machining course. In addition to the practical,
hands-on stuff we also have:
-8 full days of CAD - spread out over a month
-half a day of math per week - our book is Mathematics for Machine
Technology, so we're actually learning things we'll be applying in
the shop
-half a day of communications class per week. This is the one that
a lot of the people in our class have trouble realizing the value of.
We've been covering positive attitudes, teamwork, time management,
presentations, and computer skills (email, word processing, etc. CAD
and CNC programming aren't covered in communications). Not really
anything you need to be a good (or even excellent) machinist, but I've
met a few machinists before I started school who would have been easier
to work with if they'd learned a few of those things and followed them.
(I hope it goes without saying - that's not just limited to
machinists... there are difficult people everywhere)
-We also have a machining textbook that we're supposed to work
through and videos to watch. We spend a couple of hours a week of
classroom time on this, working at our own pace.

CAD, math, and the textbook I've been having no troubles with.
Communications class is driving me nuts. I understand the usefulness of
it all, and I appreciate having the chance to learn the things we're
covering. I'm just feeling a bit down on it because I've got an oral
presentation coming up tomorrow.

Yeah, and I wish we'd had a shop program in high school too. Guess it
wouldn't have mattered much for me anyway because I had no idea what a
machine shop even was until i'd been out of high school for a few years.

Hi,

"-half a day of math per week - our book is Mathematics for
Machine Technology"

Back in 1993 we used the same text. Ours was the third
edition. We never got to Unit 60 Machining Compound-Angular
Surfaces: Computing Angles Of Rotation and Tilt because many
in the class could not keep up and unfortunatly the
Connecticut adult education system leaves a lot to be
desired and teachs to the lowest level.

IMO this book could be a lot better but it's at least a move
in what I consider to be the right direction. I never do
trig that long way like they have you do it in the book.
Much easier for me to look at one of those charts that you
can find in something like a Carr-Lane book.

Lately I have been doing a ton of automotive reading,
downing a 120 page book about every 2 weeks. When I get done
reading what I want to I might just get motivated to do Unit
60. ;)

"but I've met a few machinists before I started school who
would have been easier to work with if they'd learned a few
of those things and followed them."

LOL. You will meet quite a few more. ;)

BTW, what CAD are they using to teach you ?

AutoCAD ?

Enjoyed your post. Hope you stick it out because IMO you do
have the right attitude to make it as a machinist. Have you
decided yet what area of machining you would like to go into ?

jon












"chem" wrote in message
...
I missed the OP about learning other things instead of just the
practical side of machining... I have to throw in my two cents, FWIW.
I'm taking an 8-9 month machining course. In addition to the practical,
hands-on stuff we also have:
-8 full days of CAD - spread out over a month
-half a day of math per week - our book is Mathematics for Machine
Technology, so we're actually learning things we'll be applying in the
shop
-half a day of communications class per week. This is the one that a
lot of the people in our class have trouble realizing the value of.
We've been covering positive attitudes, teamwork, time management,
presentations, and computer skills (email, word processing, etc. CAD
and CNC programming aren't covered in communications). Not really
anything you need to be a good (or even excellent) machinist, but I've
met a few machinists before I started school who would have been easier
to work with if they'd learned a few of those things and followed them.
(I hope it goes without saying - that's not just limited to
machinists... there are difficult people everywhere)
-We also have a machining textbook that we're supposed to work through
and videos to watch. We spend a couple of hours a week of classroom
time on this, working at our own pace.

CAD, math, and the textbook I've been having no troubles with.
Communications class is driving me nuts. I understand the usefulness of
it all, and I appreciate having the chance to learn the things we're
covering. I'm just feeling a bit down on it because I've got an oral
presentation coming up tomorrow.

Yeah, and I wish we'd had a shop program in high school too. Guess it
wouldn't have mattered much for me anyway because I had no idea what a
machine shop even was until i'd been out of high school for a few years.


chem

jon banquer wrote:

that topic could be covered in another class. Maybe make
it part of the english curriculum.


IMO, this would be the right approach. Those interested in
machining attend a english class that has been tailored to
their curriculum.


Just as the math classes should be oriented to machining.


Again, agreed. Wish I had a choice like this when I was in
high school.

Excellent post... almost makes up for your short sighted
anti-union one.

LOL

:)

jon









"john" wrote in message
...

BottleBob wrote:

Errol Groff wrote:

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.

Errol:

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a

interesting

subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here,

I'm

just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


Errol,

that topic could be covered in another class. Maybe make it part of the
english curriculum. Just as the math classes should be oriented to
machining. It would make you job easier if you only had to fill their
brains with the actual machine operations.

John




--

www.xanga.com/chemgurl

"BottleBob" wrote in message
...

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a interesting
subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

As far as it goes, I wouldn't disagree. But studying the background and
history of one's field is one mark of a professional, in the old sense of
the word. I'd like to think that people getting into the field as a career,
rather than just as a job, would be interested in how their industry got
where it is today.

If the students aren't curious about it, then there isn't much point in
forcing it upon them. But I believe quite a few would be interested.

I used to lecture on dimensional metrology, often to young people who were
new to the field, and I remember a lot of questions about the background of
the technology. They seemed interested in the way things were done in "the
old days," mostly because they were amazed at how one could measure to such
extreme accuracies without the benefits of electronic technology.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

i once was faced with the problem as to how the first screws where
made--my research into this opened up a whole field of interest--knowing
how this was done made me aware of teh beauty of machines--I suspect that
any student who does not appreciate the beauty of metal machines and what
goes into them probabvly will just be an automatron--do not interprete
this as derogatory just my own observations over the years--i am not a
machinist




On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:07:38 GMT, Ed Huntress
wrote:

"BottleBob" wrote in message
...

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a interesting
subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

As far as it goes, I wouldn't disagree. But studying the background and
history of one's field is one mark of a professional, in the old sense of
the word. I'd like to think that people getting into the field as a
career,
rather than just as a job, would be interested in how their industry got
where it is today.

If the students aren't curious about it, then there isn't much point in
forcing it upon them. But I believe quite a few would be interested.

I used to lecture on dimensional metrology, often to young people who
were
new to the field, and I remember a lot of questions about the background
of
the technology. They seemed interested in the way things were done in
"the
old days," mostly because they were amazed at how one could measure to
such
extreme accuracies without the benefits of electronic technology.




--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

ilaboo wrote:

i once was faced with the problem as to how the first screws where
made--my research into this opened up a whole field of interest--knowing
how this was done made me aware of teh beauty of machines--I suspect that
any student who does not appreciate the beauty of metal machines and what
goes into them probabvly will just be an automatron--do not interprete
this as derogatory just my own observations over the years--i am not a
machinist

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:07:38 GMT, Ed Huntress
wrote:

"BottleBob" wrote in message
...

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a interesting
subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

As far as it goes, I wouldn't disagree. But studying the background and
history of one's field is one mark of a professional, in the old sense of
the word. I'd like to think that people getting into the field as a
career,
rather than just as a job, would be interested in how their industry got
where it is today.

If the students aren't curious about it, then there isn't much point in
forcing it upon them. But I believe quite a few would be interested.

I used to lecture on dimensional metrology, often to young people who
were
new to the field, and I remember a lot of questions about the background
of
the technology. They seemed interested in the way things were done in
"the
old days," mostly because they were amazed at how one could measure to
such
extreme accuracies without the benefits of electronic technology.


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


I have seem some very old machines still being used in some shops. One
shop has a vertical boring mill from 1881 and anther one just as old. I
got some of the bolts I had to replace and you couldn't tell by looking
that they were that old except by the fact they had slot heads in stead
of hex or allen head. I have an heald internal grinder from 1911 that
does the job fine. Its been rescraped in and motors added but it runs
fine.

John

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:59:48 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:



Errol Groff wrote:

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.

Errol:

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a interesting
subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

Though I agree with the value of learning how to use the tools
effectively I also feel that anyone who doesn't wonder about those who
came up with the tools is sadly lacking, and would benefit greatly
from a study of the self discipline that those great men operated
under. Any really well rounded machinist must hold men like Whitworth,
Maudslay and Colt in awe, and their workmanship improves as they
realize they are following in the footsteps of such great human
beings.

Also;
Wilkinson, (HBM) Whitney (Milling machine), and many others. I believe
we become a little like our heros when we study their lives, and those
who discovered how to turn tool paths into data a machine can follow
automatically are certainly worthy of the same study.
The "drones" are the ones who don't care about such things, in my
opinion.

A very good position to take, Glen

Regards,

Stan-

"Glen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:59:48 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:



Errol Groff wrote:

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.

Errol:

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a interesting
subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

Though I agree with the value of learning how to use the tools
effectively I also feel that anyone who doesn't wonder about those who
came up with the tools is sadly lacking, and would benefit greatly
from a study of the self discipline that those great men operated
under. Any really well rounded machinist must hold men like Whitworth,
Maudslay and Colt in awe, and their workmanship improves as they
realize they are following in the footsteps of such great human
beings.

Also;
Wilkinson, (HBM) Whitney (Milling machine), and many others. I believe
we become a little like our heros when we study their lives, and those
who discovered how to turn tool paths into data a machine can follow
automatically are certainly worthy of the same study.
The "drones" are the ones who don't care about such things, in my
opinion.

I sort of agree with you, BB, if you take only the short view, and
if your only concern is to make chips in the near future. But if you
really want a healthy industry, and skilled people to keep it healthy,
then you need to have some traditions, some famous names, and some sense
of perspective, in the minds of people who are trying to learn to be
machinists.

There are already too many people in our business who think that the
whole thing starts and ends with their own machines, their own narrow
bits of knowledge, and their own ideas about how smart and skilled they
are. To understand the history of an entire business, and to know the
names of some of the people who changed and drove it, and some of the
innovations that have made it what it is, is to have a better sense of
one's own small place in the overall scheme of things, and of how MUCH
there is to learn, and how much room there is for growth, innovation,
and individual accomplishment.

Equally important, IMHO, is the fact that many people seem to learn
more eagerly, and more effectively, when the knowledge they're offered
comes with some kind of context that makes sense to them. If you're
attending a class and paying attention only because it's a way to get a
job in a machine shop, or because you can't get a certificate unless you
put up with whatever the teacher tells you, then you're not really
getting all you can out of the learning opportunity. If you're taught,
however, that there's a whole world full of innovative, productive,
important, and sometimes very wealthy people, and that it can be an
honor, a challenge, and even a privilege to earn your way into that
world, then everything else might have much more meaning, and might
become something a student WANTS to learn, rather than just needing to.

Future lawyers, I suspect, can be energized, and given a sense of
the gravity of their work and profession, if they're taught about a
dirt-poor country boy named Lincoln, who turned his love for books and
law into one of the most important presidencies in the history of the
United States. Doctors take an oath that was written, for the most
part, 2,500 years ago. It's a way of teaching them about the traditions
and history that guide the practice of medicine, and about standards of
conduct that they're responsible to uphold and perpetuate. Those things
don't always work, of course; but I can't believe that either the legal
world, or the medical profession, would be better off without some clear
and constant contact with their histories.

Cadets at West Point are expected to learn about "The Chain", and
about a million other pieces of military history, before they're
considered true candidates for commissions in the US Army. Knowing all
that stuff won't make the cadets into better marksmen, or better
tank-drivers, or better bridge-builders; but it might help them try a
bit harder, if they know something about how hard others have tried in
the past, and for what purposes, and with what results. It might also
give them a better sense of the reasons for command structures, and for
military codes of conduct; and help them have more trust in their
commanders, teachers, and other mentors, as they move through all the
steps that might one day lead to their own place in history.

People can be awed, motivated, challenged, and even impelled to
excellence, when they're shown something about what others have
accomplished in the past, and about how, and why, accomplishment really
happens. A machinist who's never heard of "The Arsenal of Democracy"
might not realize that it was people just like himself, reading prints
and making chips, who once made such a difference in the entire history
of the world. Someone who lacks that knowledge, and that sense of
perspective, might think "it's just a job" and might treat it
accordingly, and might therefore miss out on the excitement, the energy,
and the opportunities for achievement, that could end up helping to
change history again, tomorrow. Someone who doesn't know that it was
machinists - and the sons of machinists who went to engineering school -
who once, literally, put the whole world on wheels, might miss a chance
to dream of greatness for himself in the future, or to work toward his
dreams with commitment and zeal.

It may seem childish or naive for a student to imagine himself (or
herself) becomming the next Henry Ford, or the next Wilbur Wright, or
the next Frank Landis, or Ralph Cross, or Charles DeVlieg... But where
will the future leaders of industry come from, if not from the dreams of
those just starting out today? Will people who learn only because
they're required to, ever have visions that reach beyond their next
paycheck? Will those who think it's only a job, and that they only do
it because they didn't get a scholarship to business school, ever
realize that it can be more than a job, and that you can get out of a
profession - any profession - as much as you put into it?

Will people who know nothing about the history of the industry be
capable of understanding - in context, and with depth and insight - the
current state of our business, or problems that have roots in prior
generations? Will they be able to solve those problems, to compete with
Chinese and Indian companies, to protect and strengthen America's
industrial economy, if they don't even know that there is such a thing,
or where it came from, or how it got to the point of needing to be
protected?

Are we really willing to demote our profession to something that has
no history worth teaching, and no traditions worth learning, and no
depth or importance that we expect future machinists to understand and
protect and propagate?

I agree that history lessons won't make people better able to solve
trig problems, or to remember which G code is for clockwise circles, or
to figure out why a surface finish is so rough and nasty...

But the reason WHY anyone would want to learn those things, and
would keep learning, and keep growing, and keep improving, every single
day, is something that happens deep inside a human being. And it's
often something that happens best, most fully, and most succesfully,
when there's a history, and a community, and a sense of pride and
purpose, that a student can aspire to be part of.

We all like to belong to something. We all need and enjoy the
benefits of membership in families, communities, churches, fraternities,
bowling leagues, or whatever. It's part of human nature. If we're
going to train the machinists of the future, then why WOULDN'T we show
them just how big, and how old, and how awesome our particular club
really is? Why wouldn't we offer them something to look forward to, and
some kind of membership that deserves their effort, and their
concentration, and in which they might earn rewards that they've never
thought of? Why wouldn't we want them to learn and think about things
that go far beyond immediate concerns like passing a paper test in a
classroom, or reaming a hole to size in the shop?

We don't need more or better button-pushers, BB. We need more
people who see the metal cutting world as a career, as a globe-spanning
imperative, as a vital part of economic and political and military
history... in the past AND the future.

Any Chinese peasant with an index finger can press the start button
on a CNC machine. But how many of todays young students can we truly
prepare to invent the machinery, and to develop the methods, and to make
the decisions, which will determine whether there even IS a metal
cutting industry in the US, half a generation from now? And what can we
do to improve their chances?

In my mind, teaching them where they're starting from, and how/why
we got here, is an important part of the answer.

Respectfully,
KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.


BottleBob wrote:

The history of Machine tools seems like it would be a interesting
subject, BUT... If I were in a limited time machine shop class for the
purpose of increasing my skill level with the hope of becoming an
employable entry level machinist, I think *I'd* (and probably
prospective shop owners might also) be more interested in just HOW to
edge find or indicator sweep my parts rather than knowing WHO designed
the first edge finder, or indicator, or CNC.
Don't take this wrong, I don't mean to be overly critical here, I'm
just giving you a view from a job-shop productivity standpoint. If I
were interviewing two prospective entry level apprentices I'd be more
inclined to hire the one that showed a knowledge of the practical
application of theory over one that had historical knowledge.

In article , Errol Groff says...

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.
Looking for suggestions as to names which might be used as search
terms or links to sites that would be appropriate.

Hmm. Hardinge, Cataract. Seneca Falls, Barnes. Pittler.
Pratt and Whitney.

The earliest NC machine I saw was a Csip horizontal overarm
jig borer, running off of paper tape. I think it was 50s
vintage.

Photos of old lathe, NOT for sale:

http://www.geocities.com/noramm10566/59DESCR.html

Jim

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

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:31:09 +0000, Errol Groff wrote:

I am preparing a research assignment for my students on this subject.
Looking for suggestions as to names which might be used as search
terms or links to sites that would be appropriate.

You may find this site of interest:

http://www.gsn.uk.com/


--
Tony Hursh
Need to find your home IP remotely? http://wheresmybox.com

Don't forget "Jacquard" of loom.

This ought to get you started. *Smile

The question this group has been looking for a definitive answer for is:
How did the "Letter" size drills come into being and why?

Now, a number of members in this group have made some good contributions in
support of the origin; but I don't think anyone has been able to "rubber
stamp" the quest complete.

Maybe one of your students might take up the banner.

These references come from "Metalworking Yesterday and Tomorrow" The 100th
Anniversary Issue of American Machinist
The book was given to me by Pete Noling ,who sold me my first Hurco in
1/15/'79 Seaboard Machinery Los Angeles --

Also, I'm pleased to see a group member interested in machine tool history.
*Smile I hope we have a continuing dialog.

Best regards to you all,

Stanley Dornfeld

******************************


David Wilkinson screw cutting lathe 1794

Eli Whitney Milling 1800

Simeon North pistols Milling Machine 1813

John Hall Machine developer 1813

Robbins & Lawrence American system interchangeable parts Windsor Vermont
1843
Turret lathe

Leighton A. Wilkie Band saw 1933

Sir Joseph Whitworth 1853 thread form

Joseph R Brown of Brown and Sharpe
& Lucian Sharpe Brown's apprentice 1850

Frederick W Howe 1847

William Sellers instituted the 60 degree thread form with a flat on top
equal to 1/8 the pitch. 1864

Charles H. Norton grinders 1900

Magnus Wahlstrom & Rudolph F. Bannow The Bridgeport Milling Machine 1927
Boring and Facing head

Richard F. Moore Jig Borer 1924 The Moore Special Tool Company The
highest accuracy business in the world.

And!

John T. Parsons The Father of Numerical Control 1948
*********************************

A link http://www.americanprecision.org/


end..

Errol Groff
Instructor, Machine Tool Department
H.H. Ellis Tech
613 Upper Maple Street
Danielson, CT 06239

860 774 8511 x1811

http://pages.cthome.net/errol.groff/

http://newenglandmodelengineeringsociety.org/

"Stanley Dornfeld" wrote in message
...
This ought to get you started. *Smile

The question this group has been looking for a definitive answer for is:
How did the "Letter" size drills come into being and why?

Now, a number of members in this group have made some good contributions
in
support of the origin; but I don't think anyone has been able to "rubber
stamp" the quest complete.

Maybe one of your students might take up the banner.

These references come from "Metalworking Yesterday and Tomorrow" The
100th
Anniversary Issue of American Machinist
The book was given to me by Pete Noling ,who sold me my first Hurco in
1/15/'79 Seaboard Machinery Los Angeles --


Take a look at the masthead, or at back of the issue, and see who the
editors were. g

I have a couple of copies, which are worth their weight in gold. But I'll
let Errol have one for a while, if he wants to copy anything from it. I
wrote a number of the items in that history, mostly about the 1930's and
1940's.

Ed Huntress

VERY, VERY Coooooooooooooool Ed.

Dang! You're past your thirties. *Grin

Best regards,

Stan-

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. net...
"Stanley Dornfeld" wrote in message
...
This ought to get you started. *Smile

The question this group has been looking for a definitive answer for is:
How did the "Letter" size drills come into being and why?

Now, a number of members in this group have made some good contributions
in
support of the origin; but I don't think anyone has been able to "rubber
stamp" the quest complete.

Maybe one of your students might take up the banner.

These references come from "Metalworking Yesterday and Tomorrow" The
100th
Anniversary Issue of American Machinist
The book was given to me by Pete Noling ,who sold me my first Hurco in
1/15/'79 Seaboard Machinery Los Angeles --


Take a look at the masthead, or at back of the issue, and see who the
editors were. g

I have a couple of copies, which are worth their weight in gold. But I'll
let Errol have one for a while, if he wants to copy anything from it. I
wrote a number of the items in that history, mostly about the 1930's and
1940's.

Ed Huntress

"Stanley Dornfeld" wrote in message
...
VERY, VERY Coooooooooooooool Ed.

Dang! You're past your thirties. *Grin

I was almost into my thirties when I worked on that issue. g

Ed Huntress

I guess I was pretty lucky! My copy is also a hard bound.

Boy! I'm really feeling too cool. *S, Really!

Thanks for the info.

Regards,

Stan-

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Stanley Dornfeld" wrote in message
...
VERY, VERY Coooooooooooooool Ed.

Dang! You're past your thirties. *Grin

I was almost into my thirties when I worked on that issue. g

Ed Huntress

Ed:

I would love to have use of the copy! Thanks so much for the offer.

Errol Groff
Instructor, Machine Tool Department
H.H. Ellis Tech
613 Upper Maple Street
Danielson, CT 06239

860 774 8511 x1811

http://pages.cthome.net/errol.groff/

http://newenglandmodelengineeringsociety.org/


On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:08:24 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I have a couple of copies, which are worth their weight in gold. But I'll
let Errol have one for a while, if he wants to copy anything from it. I
wrote a number of the items in that history, mostly about the 1930's and
1940's.

Ed Huntress