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??
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
Awl--

Volume-wise, of course.
Opinions?

I read some time ago somewhere that it was drilling.



I was under that impression also, but then like DobeDave I'm
old.

Maybe with the new tooling things have changed, but then
drills have improved also.

Back in the seventies I watched a guy rough out a pocket in
a moldbase. Probably 18 to 24 inches square and 4 inches
deep as I recall. He drilled a series of large holes
probably 2" dia. leaving a small web. Took a sledge hammer
and broke out the webs that were left. Getting the first
couple of webs out was hard, but after that they popped
right out.

Best,
Steve

--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://tinyurl.com/2avg58

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

Volume-wise, of course.
Opinions?

I read some time ago somewhere that it was drilling.



I was under that impression also, but then like DobeDave I'm old.

Maybe with the new tooling things have changed, but then drills have
improved also.

Back in the seventies I watched a guy rough out a pocket in a moldbase.
Probably 18 to 24 inches square and 4 inches deep as I recall. He drilled
a series of large holes probably 2" dia. leaving a small web. Took a
sledge hammer and broke out the webs that were left. Getting the first
couple of webs out was hard, but after that they popped right out.

How silly of me:
Sledgehammering! Of course...
Mebbe a mawl.....


So the Rhino pocketing via drilling appears to be an established strategy.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs


Best,
Steve

--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://tinyurl.com/2avg58

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

Volume-wise, of course.
Opinions?

I read some time ago somewhere that it was drilling.



I was under that impression also, but then like DobeDave I'm old.

Maybe with the new tooling things have changed, but then drills have
improved also.

Back in the seventies I watched a guy rough out a pocket in a moldbase.
Probably 18 to 24 inches square and 4 inches deep as I recall. He
drilled a series of large holes probably 2" dia. leaving a small web.
Took a sledge hammer and broke out the webs that were left. Getting the
first couple of webs out was hard, but after that they popped right out.

How silly of me:
Sledgehammering! Of course...
Mebbe a mawl.....


So the Rhino pocketing via drilling appears to be an established strategy.

Well, it's been around for at least 100 years. Then you would go to work
with diemaker's chisels. Now, they follow up with endmills.

The new, really aggressive insert-type drills gave it a new life. Iscar was
promoting it four or five years ago. And at least one of the CAD/CAM
companies that specializes in moldmaking wrote some routines for doing it
about the same time.

--
Ed Huntress

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:


So the Rhino pocketing via drilling appears to be an established strategy.

Yes, I do that from time to time, usually when the slots are
deep and narrow.

Best,
Steve
--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://tinyurl.com/2avg58

If you have a 20 foot bar and need 2 inches, you can remove 19' 10" with one
quick saw cut! Somehow I'd bet that's not what you were looking for!


I read some time ago somewhere that it was drilling.

snipped

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:45:05 -0400, 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??

A shaped charge of high explosive comes to mind.

Or did you mean something that could be used in the home shop?

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
Volume-wise, of course.
...

You really have to normalize for cost, too: volume per unit time per
unit cost. Otherwise, the biggest machine wins, whatever the type.

Given that, I'd say the abrasive cut off saw. I just tested mine: I cut
a 3/8 x 2" bar in 10 seconds. 1/8" kerf gives 3/32 cu-in or 9/16
cu-in/min. Cost is a lot harder, but the electricity component is easy:
15a x 120v x 10sec = 5wh (.005kWh) = $.00 +-. The 14" blade cost $6,
IIRC, and if it would do 100 of these cuts, the unit cost is $.06. The
saw is a better one (B&D Industrial) & cost $180. If it's good for 40
blades (??), 100 cuts per blade, that's 4000 cuts or $.045 per.
Operator cost at $20/hr (unskilled labor) = $.055. Total: $.16 per cut;
9/16 cu-in/min/$.16 = 3.5 cu-in/min/$.

Anybody want to do the numbers for drilling? Lathe, mill, shaper, ...?

Bob

On Aug 2, 6:45 am, "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??
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

Maybe they were talking about rotating tools. ??

Stan-

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
. ..


Anybody want to do the numbers for drilling? Lathe, mill, shaper, ...?

Bob


I think that drilling would win by a landslide. Heck, 25 years ago I worked
at a machine shop and I got a kick out of drilling 2" holes in steel, in a
40 HP turning lathe, carbide insert drill. You could ram that drill in to
the stock about as fast as you wanted to, at a fairly high RPM too. The
chips would come out cold with the flood coolant. IIRC we could drill some
where around 1/2" per second.
It is kind of like building race cars. How fast you want to go is limited by
how much money you have to spend!
Greg

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:

I read some time ago somewhere that it was drilling.

Oxy/act is fairly quick too.

Drilling and bandsaw comes in second but less warping and no haz issues.

Wes

Greg O wrote:
I think that drilling would win by a landslide. Heck, 25 years ago I
worked at a machine shop and I got a kick out of drilling 2" holes in
steel, in a 40 HP turning lathe, carbide insert drill. ...

Sure, but what did that 40 hp lathe cost? The cu-in/min is very
impressive, but what's the cu-in/min/$? It's the "/$" that's the great
equalizer. Although I do suspect that there's an economy-of-scale thing
here, where bigger is cheaper. So the vol/time/cost number is most
useful for comparing like-scale tools. E.g., a home shop lathe to a
home shop drill press, etc.

Bob

Wes wrote:
...
Drilling and bandsaw comes in second ...

No way a bandsaw is as fast as an abrasive chop saw, for similarly
priced units. How big a bandsaw would you need to cut 3/8 x 2" in 10
secs? Much bigger than a 4 x 6, for sure! And that's with a kerf
that's 1/2 that of the chop saw (i.e., 1/2 the volume removed).

Bob

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:45:05 -0400 in rec.crafts.metalworking,
"Proctologically Violated©®"
wrote,
Volume-wise, of course.
Opinions?

I vote for a bandsaw, or certainly some kind of saw as the large piece
of scrap material is removed without having to be turned into chips.

"David Harmon" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:45:05 -0400 in rec.crafts.metalworking,
"Proctologically Violated©®"
wrote,
Volume-wise, of course.
Opinions?

I vote for a bandsaw, or certainly some kind of saw as the large piece
of scrap material is removed without having to be turned into chips.

You win the prize, the bandsaw/wire edm/laser removes "areas" of material,
beating all other methods, well, except one....

Intelligent design. That has the potential to remove stock faster than
anything.

David Harmon wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:45:05 -0400 in rec.crafts.metalworking,
"Proctologically Violated©®"
wrote,

Volume-wise, of course.
Opinions?


I vote for a bandsaw, or certainly some kind of saw as the large piece
of scrap material is removed without having to be turned into chips.


http://www.little-mountain.com/bigmuskie/

"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.

PV:

This subject came up years ago. Here are the pertinent parts of a post
I made in Jan 2003.

================================================== ==========================
I also was taught that drilling removes more material, when an
apprentice decades ago. Is it still true today? I don't know, but
let's play with some theoretical figures.


pi * D^2 * f * N
MMR When Drilling = ------------------
4


Whe MMR is the Material Removal Rate in cubic inches per minute
f is the feed rate in IPR (inches per revolution) IPR X RPM =
IPM
N is the spindle speed in RPM


SFPM * 12
RPM = -----------
pi * D


IPM = RPM * Chip Load * Number of Flutes


2" Dia. Drill
525 SFPM in Aluminum
.0065 Chip load per flute


I'm trying to keep everything as close to 10 HP as I can for
comparison
purposes. So plugging those numbers in, I get:


1000 RPM at 13 IPM


pi * 4 * 13 (IPM)
----------------- = 40.8 MMR (cubic inches per minute removed)
4


HP = MMR * UHP (unit horsepower - number taken off chart - .25 for
aluminum)


So 40.8 * .25 = 10.2 HP



2" Dia. Inserted End Mill
7200 RPM (3769 SFPM) in Aluminum
.007 Chip load per flute


IPM = RPM * Chip Load * Flutes


7200 * .007 * 2 = 100.8 IPM


Now the MMR formula for milling is:


MMR = W * H * F


Whe W = Width of cut
H = Depth of cut
F = Feed Rate in IPM


So if we take a 2" inserted end mill at 2" Width of Cut and .200
Depth
of cut at 100 IPM we get:


2 * .200 * 100 (IPM) = 40 MMR (cubic inches per minute removed)


And HP = MMR * UHP so 40 MMR * .25 = 10 HP


So it appears that "theoretically" in Aluminum the Drilling and
Milling
MMR rates remove similar amounts of material at the same 10 HP




In 1020 steel the rates would be (I'll just give the results)
remember
I'm trying to keep the horsepower consistent at around 10 HP for
comparison purposes).


2" Drill, 76 SFPM, 145 RPM, .026 per flute, 7.55 IPM
= an MMR of 10.26 cu.in./min and 9.9 HP (UHP taken off chart is
1.6
for 1020 steel)


A 2" inserted end mill, 4 flutes, 365 SFPM, .0055 per flute
= 697 RPM and 15.3 IPM


A 2" Width of cut * .2 Depth of cut * 15.3 IPM gives:


An MMR of 6.12 cu.in./min. at 9.8 HP


So it appears that "theoretically" in 1020 steel more material
could be
removed by drilling (10.26 cu.in./min.) than by milling (6.12
cu.in./min.) at the same 10 HP. (Unless I've slipped a digit somewhere)


The difference between cutting steel and aluminum is that there
doesn't
really seem to be an upper SFPM limit to cutting aluminum. Whereas in
steel the inserts degrade quite rapidly if you exceed recommended SFPM
limits to any significant degree.
================================================== ==========================



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

My experience is that I can only make 1 pound of steel chips per hour
with my mill with end mills bits.

But drilling on centers in my lathe, about the same size, I can make
chips 3 or 4 times faster.

My theory is that the drill is balanced. That allows more tool force
with less stress on the tool and kept the vibration from being the limit
of cutting rate.
A single flute drill would be as slow as the mill, as I can tell from
how slow a boring bar works.

I don't even use the shaper.

The center is the worst so it is drilled out with a smaller
drill - a.k.a. pilot hole for the web.
Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Endowment Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


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??

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

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...

Tools with lots of teeth are usually going to be milling or circular
sawing tools, which have two fundamental problems. 1. They can't have
all their teeth in the work at the same time. In fact, the edges on all
such tools just HAVE to spend at least 50 percent of every rev wandering
around in air, waiting to get back to work. (Unless they're plunging,
and acting like drills; but that's cheating.) 2. Milling or sawing
involves LATERAL cutting forces - ACROSS the centerline of the tool's
rotation. Such forces are very tough to deal with, and can put serious
limits on chip loads, no matter how the teeth are designed. And there
are tengential forces, too, which make things even worse.

Lathes can move a lot of metal, just because they're generally some
of the heftiest and most powerful machines. Lathe tools can cut
continuously, too, instead of having to wander away from the work during
half of every rev. And they don't have the problem of a rotating tool
and lateral forces. They do, however, suffer from having exactly one
cutting edge in play at any given time, and they create tangential
forces on the workpiece which, though not as bad as lateral forces, are
still a bitch, and serously limiting.

Other kinds of multi-tooth tools, like broaches, can develop many
different kinds of cutting forces; but they still can't keep their edges
in the work full time. Broaches, for example, although they can put
LOTS of teeth on the work at once, need to stop and retract at the end
of every cut. Bummer.

Grinding wheels have the largest numbers of "teeth", of course; but
they're teeth that make very small chips, and very large (relatively
speaking, on a per tooth basis) amounts of heat and pressure. So they
don't move much metal, no matter how hard they try.

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

Kirk Gordon wrote in news:46B2A061.4020103@gordon-
eng2.com:

They do, however, suffer from having exactly one
cutting edge in play at any given time, and they create tangential
forces on the workpiece which, though not as bad as lateral forces, are
still a bitch, and serously limiting.


I seriously disagree here

I routinely have 3, 4, 5 or more tools (edges) in the cut at the same
time on lathes, and on quite a few machines, they are on the same slide.

--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

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

Volume-wise, of course.
Opinions?

I read some time ago somewhere that it was drilling.



I was under that impression also, but then like DobeDave I'm old.

Maybe with the new tooling things have changed, but then drills have
improved also.

Back in the seventies I watched a guy rough out a pocket in a
moldbase. Probably 18 to 24 inches square and 4 inches deep as I
recall. He drilled a series of large holes probably 2" dia. leaving
a small web. Took a sledge hammer and broke out the webs that were
left. Getting the first couple of webs out was hard, but after that
they popped right out.

How silly of me:
Sledgehammering! Of course...
Mebbe a mawl.....


So the Rhino pocketing via drilling appears to be an established
strategy.

Best,
Steve

--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://tinyurl.com/2avg58

The same way the stock got there in the first place. A truck.

Bob Engelhardt wrote:

No way a bandsaw is as fast as an abrasive chop saw, for similarly
priced units. How big a bandsaw would you need to cut 3/8 x 2" in 10
secs? Much bigger than a 4 x 6, for sure! And that's with a kerf
that's 1/2 that of the chop saw (i.e., 1/2 the volume removed).


We have a surface grinder at work that is permanently set up with a 6"
diameter by 1/32" wide grinding disk. It is my favorite cut off tool for
anything 1".

I think before I will spend money on a 4 x 6" bs, I'd put it toward a
surface grinder and some of those 1/32" wide disks. My uncle down the road
has a saw and work has a few bigger ones.

Wes

"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

How about this beast...

http://www.michaelgriswold.com/Pictu...er/bagger.html

I know it's not exactly removing metal, but talk about volume!

If you're talking about more-or-less normal metalworking, I'd vote for
a big horizontal mill. I'd bet a 40 hp horizontal would smoke a 40hp
drill press in terms of moving metal.

http://www.little-mountain.com/bigmuskie/
I see someone had the same idea....

On Aug 3, 5:42 pm, wrote:
If you're talking about more-or-less normal metalworking, I'd vote for
a big horizontal mill. I'd bet a 40 hp horizontal would smoke a 40hp
drill press in terms of moving metal.
Then again, after actually *reading* the responses, it looks like I'm
wrong.

aaa, wouldn't the fastest material removal be one of the giant skiploaders
used for strip mining?
"Anthony" wrote in message
...
Kirk Gordon wrote in news:46B2A061.4020103@gordon-
eng2.com:

They do, however, suffer from having exactly one
cutting edge in play at any given time, and they create tangential
forces on the workpiece which, though not as bad as lateral forces, are
still a bitch, and serously limiting.


I seriously disagree here

I routinely have 3, 4, 5 or more tools (edges) in the cut at the same
time on lathes, and on quite a few machines, they are on the same slide.

--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Anthony wrote:
Kirk Gordon wrote in news:46B2A061.4020103@gordon-
eng2.com:


They do, however, suffer from having exactly one
cutting edge in play at any given time, and they create tangential
forces on the workpiece which, though not as bad as lateral forces, are
still a bitch, and serously limiting.



I seriously disagree here

I routinely have 3, 4, 5 or more tools (edges) in the cut at the same
time on lathes, and on quite a few machines, they are on the same slide.


Nothing to disagree about, except that you're talking machinery, and
I was talking basic processes. If you had a whole flock of drills going
at the same time, you'd remove more metal than with the same number of
turning/boring tools.

Of course, if we're going to bend the rules a bit, then the best
tool for removing metal is a chip conveyor.

KG

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??




The machine with the most HP.

I have a 30 hp swing grinder that will chew off metal as fast as most
any drill or milling machine.

John

"john" wrote in message
news


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??




The machine with the most HP.

I have a 30 hp swing grinder that will chew off metal as fast as most any
drill or milling machine.

John

The fastest metal removal rate in a shop I worked in was also a grinder, a
200 hp Blanchard!

Gary H. Lucas

Gary H. Lucas wrote:
"john" wrote in message
news

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??




The machine with the most HP.

I have a 30 hp swing grinder that will chew off metal as fast as most any
drill or milling machine.

John


The fastest metal removal rate in a shop I worked in was also a grinder, a
200 hp Blanchard!

Gary H. Lucas


Nothing like a lot of horses and a big machine....


John

Gary H. Lucas wrote:
"john" wrote in message
news

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??




The machine with the most HP.

I have a 30 hp swing grinder that will chew off metal as fast as most any
drill or milling machine.

John


The fastest metal removal rate in a shop I worked in was also a grinder, a
200 hp Blanchard!

Gary H. Lucas


Locally we have one of 9,800 hp...

Tom

"john" wrote in message ...


Gary H. Lucas wrote:
"john" wrote in message news

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??




The machine with the most HP.

I have a 30 hp swing grinder that will chew off metal as fast as most any drill or milling machine.

John


The fastest metal removal rate in a shop I worked in was also a grinder, a 200 hp Blanchard!

Gary H. Lucas
Nothing like a lot of horses and a big machine....


John


Thanks for the link John, nice program you wrote there

http://home.centurytel.net/cty90143/shopcost/

John

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:46:27 -0500, "Roger_N" wrote:

If you have a 20 foot bar and need 2 inches, you can remove 19' 10" with one
quick saw cut! Somehow I'd bet that's not what you were looking for!


I read some time ago somewhere that it was drilling.

snipped


Jb would mill off the other end I expect, while moaning about
highbread being unseemed.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:57:24 -0400, "vinny" wrote:

"David Harmon" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:45:05 -0400 in rec.crafts.metalworking,
"Proctologically Violated©®"
wrote,
Volume-wise, of course.
Opinions?

I vote for a bandsaw, or certainly some kind of saw as the large piece
of scrap material is removed without having to be turned into chips.

You win the prize, the bandsaw/wire edm/laser removes "areas" of material,
beating all other methods, well, except one....

Perhaps you want a sheer ..
--
Cliff

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:54:33 -0700, BottleBob wrote:

let's play with some theoretical figures

SFM at the center of a drill can be a bit low ..
--
Cliff

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:54:33 -0700, BottleBob wrote:

So it appears that "theoretically"

I'd guess your charts are a bit rigged.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:14:30 +1200, Tom wrote:

The fastest metal removal rate in a shop I worked in was also a grinder, a
200 hp Blanchard!

Gary H. Lucas


Locally we have one of 9,800 hp...

??
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:14:30 +1200, Tom wrote:


The fastest metal removal rate in a shop I worked in was also a grinder, a
200 hp Blanchard!

Gary H. Lucas



Locally we have one of 9,800 hp...


??
Yep, wrong, I phoned them and it's 10,725 hp.