The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the table and had at it
with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After much effort I got it
down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I could not seem to do better.
Anyway, for the job in mind I was not too concerned.

The work went swimmingly: It involved drilling three holes down the center
of a 2.5" piece of a 7/16" key stock. I laid out the centres just to be sure
and used a centre finder on the first one - center drilled, drilled, repeat
three times by moving the Y-axis with the X-axis locked.

To my surprise the holes came out on a diagonal. Very slight but noticeable
to a naked eye and confirmed by measurement - and not a subtle 0.002"
either!

The only reason I can think of is that I screwed up the vise alignment
(duh!) but why? Is it because the indicator is attached to the spindle in a
drill chuck and the spindle has a freedom to move with every adjustment to
the vise I make? I have seen this procedure on two videos and unless I am
missing something everyone does it this way, i.e. indicator in a chuck.

Maybe I should repeat with the indicator on a mag base somewhere independent
of the spindle? What do you guys do?

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

"Michael Koblic" wrote in message
The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the
table and had at it
with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After
much effort I got it
down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I could not
seem to do better.
Anyway, for the job in mind I was not too concerned.

The work went swimmingly: It involved drilling three holes
down the center
of a 2.5" piece of a 7/16" key stock. I laid out the
centres just to be sure
and used a centre finder on the first one - center
drilled, drilled, repeat
three times by moving the Y-axis with the X-axis locked.

To my surprise the holes came out on a diagonal. Very
slight but noticeable
to a naked eye and confirmed by measurement - and not a
subtle 0.002"
either!

The only reason I can think of is that I screwed up the
vise alignment
(duh!) but why? Is it because the indicator is attached to
the spindle in a
drill chuck and the spindle has a freedom to move with
every adjustment to
the vise I make? I have seen this procedure on two videos
and unless I am
missing something everyone does it this way, i.e.
indicator in a chuck.

Maybe I should repeat with the indicator on a mag base
somewhere independent
of the spindle? What do you guys do?

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC



On my old Millport (Bridgeport clone from Taiwan) there is a
boss with a set
screw near the quill lock through which I can insert a rod
with a D.I.. That
way the movement of the quill is not even considered. Much
more stable
and quick to use. You want the face of the chuck in line
with the table
movement., right?
phil

Phil Kangas used his keyboard to write :
"Michael Koblic" wrote in message
The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the table and had at it
with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After much effort I got it
down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I could not seem to do better.
Anyway, for the job in mind I was not too concerned.

The work went swimmingly: It involved drilling three holes down the center
of a 2.5" piece of a 7/16" key stock. I laid out the centres just to be sure
and used a centre finder on the first one - center drilled, drilled, repeat
three times by moving the Y-axis with the X-axis locked.

To my surprise the holes came out on a diagonal. Very slight but noticeable
to a naked eye and confirmed by measurement - and not a subtle 0.002"
either!

The only reason I can think of is that I screwed up the vise alignment
(duh!) but why? Is it because the indicator is attached to the spindle in a
drill chuck and the spindle has a freedom to move with every adjustment to
the vise I make? I have seen this procedure on two videos and unless I am
missing something everyone does it this way, i.e. indicator in a chuck.

Maybe I should repeat with the indicator on a mag base somewhere independent
of the spindle? What do you guys do?

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC



On my old Millport (Bridgeport clone from Taiwan) there is a
boss with a set
screw near the quill lock through which I can insert a rod
with a D.I.. That
way the movement of the quill is not even considered. Much
more stable
and quick to use. You want the face of the chuck in line
with the table
movement., right?
phil

Phil,
Aha! That's what that rod was for. When I got my mill I didn't
know what the rod in that position was used for. Forgot about it
and never asked on the NG about it.

Michael,
Are the gibs adjusted properly?

Wayne D.

On Nov 25, 9:26*pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote:
"Michael Koblic" wrote in message
The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the
table and had at it
with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After

much effort I got it down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I could not
seem to do better.
Anyway, for the job in mind I was not too concerned.

The work went swimmingly: It involved drilling three holes
down the center
of a 2.5" piece of a 7/16" key stock. I laid out the

centres just to be sure and used a centre finder on the first one - center

drilled, drilled, repeat three times by moving the Y-axis with the X-axis locked.

To my surprise the holes came out on a diagonal. Very

slight but noticeable to a naked eye and confirmed by measurement - and not a
subtle 0.002"
either!

The only reason I can think of *is that I screwed up the
vise alignment
(duh!) but why? Is it because the indicator is attached to
the spindle in a
drill chuck and the spindle has a freedom to move with
every adjustment to
the vise I make? I have seen this procedure on two videos
and unless I am
missing something everyone does it this way, i.e.

indicator in a chuck.

Maybe I should repeat with the indicator on a mag base

somewhere independent

of the spindle? What do you guys do?

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

On my old Millport (Bridgeport clone from Taiwan) there is a
boss with a set
screw near the quill lock through which I can insert a rod
with a D.I.. That
way the movement of the quill is not even considered. Much
more stable
and quick to use. You want the face of the chuck in line
with the table
movement., right?
phil


My indicator is mounted on a small magnetic base which I stick onto
the vertical dovetail that carries the knee. This dovetail runs from
the base of the machine to the very top of the mill... It is
basically a horizontal mill with a vertical head.

Michael, it is just possible that the spindle rotates a little when
you adjust the vise, as you suspect

I use a .001" / div Federal indicator and have no difficulty in
adjusting the vise so that there is no indicator needle movement.

Does your vise have any locating keys engaging a Tee slot? Just
asking:-)). One thing I do is snug one bolt holding the vise, and
leave the other a little looser; it makes the adjustment movement a
little more predictable.

Wolfgang

Phil Kangas wrote:

On my old Millport (Bridgeport clone from Taiwan) there is a
boss with a set
screw near the quill lock through which I can insert a rod
with a D.I.. That
way the movement of the quill is not even considered. Much
more stable
and quick to use. You want the face of the chuck in line
with the table
movement., right?

I am not entirely sure. All I can see is a need for a point which is a)
rigid and b) independent of the table movement to which I attach the
indicator so I can run the face of the vise jaw past it and see if it moves.
The chuck is the logical choice. In my case there is the added complication
of having to arrange the indicator on its supporting rods so it can a)
present the point as near as possible to right angle at the vise jaw face
and b) can be read - it required some thought!

I can see a test indicator in my Christmas stocking, but same problem will
ensue if I attach it to a chuck that can move. Using the bar to stop the
spindle movement (as when changing MT3 attachments) still allows some
movement.

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

I need to tram the head. They vice and ways are trammed already.

I take out a chuck and put in a quality collet. I clamp the gauge
into the R8 or (you whatever) as they are much, much better than a chuck.

My vice has screw in self aligning inserts that slide into the T slots.
It is a large Kurt. Wish I had a 4" Kurt.

Martin

Wayne wrote:
Phil Kangas used his keyboard to write :
"Michael Koblic" wrote in message
The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the table and had
at it
with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After much effort I
got it
down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I could not seem to do
better.
Anyway, for the job in mind I was not too concerned.

The work went swimmingly: It involved drilling three holes down the
center
of a 2.5" piece of a 7/16" key stock. I laid out the centres just to
be sure
and used a centre finder on the first one - center drilled, drilled,
repeat
three times by moving the Y-axis with the X-axis locked.

To my surprise the holes came out on a diagonal. Very slight but
noticeable
to a naked eye and confirmed by measurement - and not a subtle 0.002"
either!

The only reason I can think of is that I screwed up the vise alignment
(duh!) but why? Is it because the indicator is attached to the
spindle in a
drill chuck and the spindle has a freedom to move with every
adjustment to
the vise I make? I have seen this procedure on two videos and unless
I am
missing something everyone does it this way, i.e. indicator in a chuck.

Maybe I should repeat with the indicator on a mag base somewhere
independent
of the spindle? What do you guys do?

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC



On my old Millport (Bridgeport clone from Taiwan) there is a
boss with a set
screw near the quill lock through which I can insert a rod
with a D.I.. That
way the movement of the quill is not even considered. Much
more stable
and quick to use. You want the face of the chuck in line
with the table
movement., right?
phil

Phil,
Aha! That's what that rod was for. When I got my mill I didn't
know what the rod in that position was used for. Forgot about it
and never asked on the NG about it.

Michael,
Are the gibs adjusted properly?

Wayne D.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:51:52 -0800, "Michael Koblic"
wrote:

The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the table and had at it
with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After much effort I got it
down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I could not seem to do better.
Anyway, for the job in mind I was not too concerned.

The work went swimmingly: It involved drilling three holes down the center
of a 2.5" piece of a 7/16" key stock. I laid out the centres just to be sure
and used a centre finder on the first one - center drilled, drilled, repeat
three times by moving the Y-axis with the X-axis locked.

To my surprise the holes came out on a diagonal. Very slight but noticeable
to a naked eye and confirmed by measurement - and not a subtle 0.002"
either!

The only reason I can think of is that I screwed up the vise alignment
(duh!) but why? Is it because the indicator is attached to the spindle in a
drill chuck and the spindle has a freedom to move with every adjustment to
the vise I make? I have seen this procedure on two videos and unless I am
missing something everyone does it this way, i.e. indicator in a chuck.

Maybe I should repeat with the indicator on a mag base somewhere independent
of the spindle? What do you guys do?

Clamp around the quill, not the spindle. if you have to, use a hose
clamp and a bit of strap to make something to hang your indicator from.

that is what I do. On the other hand..you can indeed chuck your
indicator in a drill chuck..but put the spindle into lock mode...with
the motor off, put it i n the lowerst gear you have. less likely for
the spindle to turn. Its pretty sure that your spindle turned while
you were indicating.

Or your mill is way way way out of alighment G

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:51:52 -0800, "Michael Koblic"
wrote:

The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the table and had at
it
with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After much effort I got
it
down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I could not seem to do
better.
Anyway, for the job in mind I was not too concerned.


giant snip

actually, for your purposes, I think all need to do is square the mill to
the table. Here is a technique shown to me that is fast and very accurate

clamp a stiff straightedge in the vise - at least 12 inches long.

Take your suface gauge and set it so it just touches one end of the
straightedge with the pins in a table groove. Then take it to the other
side of the vise, and with pins in same groove, check distance - adjust to
remove 1/2 the error and repeat - if this takes 30 sec to square vise to
table, you are just pausing to drink coffee or something.

if the table is canted with respect to the head, it won't matter (at least
for drilling and end milling), so long as the head is vertical to the table.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Gunner Asch wrote:

Clamp around the quill, not the spindle. if you have to, use a hose
clamp and a bit of strap to make something to hang your indicator
from.

that is what I do. On the other hand..you can indeed chuck your
indicator in a drill chuck..but put the spindle into lock mode...with
the motor off, put it i n the lowerst gear you have. less likely for
the spindle to turn. Its pretty sure that your spindle turned while
you were indicating.

Or your mill is way way way out of alighment G


Thanks.

I should fill in some details:

1) I trammed the table and it is level to within 1/1000" - I checked it
again just to make sure.
2) The vise is on a base with two slots and rotates. Mindful of the advice
in the MIT clips I did just that - gradually tightened the screws that
control the rotation and gently tapped the vise with a dead blow hammer to
make the corrections.
3) I cannot stop the spindle rotating, even in the lowest gear.
4) I adjusted the gibs on day 1 to the best of my ability. I cannot
demonstrate play in any of the axes. But...will check again!

The common theme appears to be that the source of the error is likely the
movement of the indicator as used currently. I shall fix it and repeat.

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:36:20 -0800, "Michael Koblic"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Clamp around the quill, not the spindle. if you have to, use a hose
clamp and a bit of strap to make something to hang your indicator
from.

that is what I do. On the other hand..you can indeed chuck your
indicator in a drill chuck..but put the spindle into lock mode...with
the motor off, put it i n the lowerst gear you have. less likely for
the spindle to turn. Its pretty sure that your spindle turned while
you were indicating.

Or your mill is way way way out of alighment G


Thanks.

I should fill in some details:

1) I trammed the table and it is level to within 1/1000" - I checked it
again just to make sure.
2) The vise is on a base with two slots and rotates. Mindful of the advice
in the MIT clips I did just that - gradually tightened the screws that
control the rotation and gently tapped the vise with a dead blow hammer to
make the corrections.
3) I cannot stop the spindle rotating, even in the lowest gear.
4) I adjusted the gibs on day 1 to the best of my ability. I cannot
demonstrate play in any of the axes. But...will check again!

The common theme appears to be that the source of the error is likely the
movement of the indicator as used currently. I shall fix it and repeat.


Pro shops get rid of the rotating table some vises are mounted on. Only
if you need to spin something out of square does the swivel base go back
on..or they use a rotory table.

what mill do you have? If its a bridgeport, you can intentionally jam
the gears by putting it in low range with the overhead selector around
the draw bar on the head and putting it in low range with the selector
on the right side of the head. Or pull the brake and hold it with a
bungee cord. shrug

But the strap and hoseclamp around the quill works quickly and easily
and avoids the spindle entirely.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

"Michael Koblic" wrote in message
...
The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the table and had at
it with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After much effort I
got it down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I could not seem to do
better. Anyway, for the job in mind I was not too concerned.

The work went swimmingly: It involved drilling three holes down the center
of a 2.5" piece of a 7/16" key stock. I laid out the centres just to be
sure and used a centre finder on the first one - center drilled, drilled,
repeat three times by moving the Y-axis with the X-axis locked.

To my surprise the holes came out on a diagonal. Very slight but
noticeable to a naked eye and confirmed by measurement - and not a subtle
0.002" either!

The only reason I can think of is that I screwed up the vise alignment
(duh!) but why? Is it because the indicator is attached to the spindle in
a drill chuck and the spindle has a freedom to move with every adjustment
to the vise I make? I have seen this procedure on two videos and unless I
am missing something everyone does it this way, i.e. indicator in a chuck.

Maybe I should repeat with the indicator on a mag base somewhere
independent of the spindle? What do you guys do?

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC


Unless you have a spindle lock, use the mag base and attach it to the head.
If the spindle rotates at all, you've wasted your time.

In article , "Michael Koblic" wrote:
Phil Kangas wrote:

On my old Millport (Bridgeport clone from Taiwan) there is a
boss with a set
screw near the quill lock through which I can insert a rod
with a D.I.. That
way the movement of the quill is not even considered. Much
more stable
and quick to use. You want the face of the chuck in line
with the table
movement., right?

I am not entirely sure. All I can see is a need for a point which is a)
rigid and b) independent of the table movement to which I attach the
indicator so I can run the face of the vise jaw past it and see if it moves.
The chuck is the logical choice. In my case there is the added complication
of having to arrange the indicator on its supporting rods so it can a)
present the point as near as possible to right angle at the vise jaw face
and b) can be read - it required some thought!

I can see a test indicator in my Christmas stocking, but same problem will
ensue if I attach it to a chuck that can move. Using the bar to stop the
spindle movement (as when changing MT3 attachments) still allows some
movement.

While you are at it, ask Santa for an Indicol (on sale at Enco, by
the way). This not only allows more flexibility in mounting an
indicator, but allows you to leave tooling in the spindle it you have to
indicate something. I use it for aligning my vise, but also for tramming
the head. It can swing out far enough to get a very sensitive tramming
measurement. I have the additional "Adjustol" rod, but never use it.

Doug White

On Nov 26, 4:52*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
...
Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

I've been reading this eBook on French military victories by an author
with the same misplaced contempt for Prussian field artillery;
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7294

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:10:58 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 26, 4:52*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
...
Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

I've been reading this eBook on French military victories by an author
with the same misplaced contempt for Prussian field artillery;
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7294


thanks! Ill read that over the holidays.


"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

In article ,
says...


In article , "Michael Koblic"
wrote:
Phil Kangas wrote:

On my old Millport (Bridgeport clone from Taiwan) there is a
boss with a set
screw near the quill lock through which I can insert a rod
with a D.I.. That
way the movement of the quill is not even considered. Much
more stable
and quick to use. You want the face of the chuck in line
with the table
movement., right?

I am not entirely sure. All I can see is a need for a point which is a)
rigid and b) independent of the table movement to which I attach the
indicator so I can run the face of the vise jaw past it and see if it moves.
The chuck is the logical choice. In my case there is the added complication
of having to arrange the indicator on its supporting rods so it can a)
present the point as near as possible to right angle at the vise jaw face
and b) can be read - it required some thought!

I can see a test indicator in my Christmas stocking, but same problem will
ensue if I attach it to a chuck that can move. Using the bar to stop the
spindle movement (as when changing MT3 attachments) still allows some
movement.

While you are at it, ask Santa for an Indicol (on sale at Enco, by
the way). This not only allows more flexibility in mounting an
indicator, but allows you to leave tooling in the spindle it you have to
indicate something. I use it for aligning my vise, but also for tramming
the head. It can swing out far enough to get a very sensitive tramming
measurement. I have the additional "Adjustol" rod, but never use it.


I searched Enco and as far as I gather Indicol is a maker of dial-related
things. Many items came up. Do you have the specifics?

I was going to get the small magentic attachment Little Machine Shop sells for
about $5. I am sick of struggling with the contraption I have.

M. Koblic,
CR, BC

In article ,
says...


Unless you have a spindle lock, use the mag base and attach it to the head.
If the spindle rotates at all, you've wasted your time.



I pretty much gathered that. Today I got my mag base attached to the head and
reorganized the bars so I could repeat the test.

I re-checked the gibs and lo and behold, there was some play in the X-axis. I
tightened it but to get rid of the play the movement on X is now quite stiff.

I re-tightened the main screws on the vise and with some minor tapping I think
I got the jaws squared down to 1/1000".

One of the issues I noticed was that the indicator does not always return to
the same reading if the plunger is pulled back and returned to the same spot -
there was a random error of about 4/1000"!

Anyway, I grabbed a small piece of 3/8 key stock out of the box (not milled to
square), laid out a centre line and tried to repeat the process of yesterday.
First of all, my centre finding sucks, but at least the holes were in line.
There was a minor discrepancy on one end but close examination of the piece
showed that the indexing side was not completely flat.

So, for the moment, the problem seems to be solved. Now to work on better
machining skills...

Mike Koblic,
CR, BC
-my normal news reader is on the blink!

"Michael Koblic" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Anyway, I grabbed a small piece of 3/8 key stock out of the box (not
milled to
square), laid out a centre line and tried to repeat the process of
yesterday.
First of all, my centre finding sucks, but at least the holes were in
line.
There was a minor discrepancy on one end but close examination of the
piece
showed that the indexing side was not completely flat.

So, for the moment, the problem seems to be solved. Now to work on better
machining skills...


Let us assume that you have no indicator at all. You do however have a edge
finder.

If you were to take a reading at the edges of the back face of the mill vise
and get the same reading you would be square.

They make a nifty indicator clamp that clamps on to the quill, very handy
for squaring the vise.

Also once you get set up to indicate the vise, take a little time to adjust
the keyway stops on the underside of the vise so you can get it really darn
close on the first attempt.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:10:04 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:10:58 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 26, 4:52*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
...
Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

I've been reading this eBook on French military victories by an author
with the same misplaced contempt for Prussian field artillery;
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7294


thanks! Ill read that over the holidays.

That's gotta be a _short_ book, wot? bseg

I just finished _Ricochet: Confessions of an NRA Lobbyist_ and _Bran
Mak Morn_ this week. I don't know which was more gory.

---
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
--John Wayne (1907 - 1979)

"
I searched Enco and as far as I gather Indicol is a maker of dial-related
things. Many items came up. Do you have the specifics?

I was going to get the small magentic attachment Little Machine Shop sells
for
about $5. I am sick of struggling with the contraption I have.

M. Koblic,
CR, BC

Harbor Freight frequently sells a magnetic base with a dial type plunge
indicator for around $15 for the pair - these come in handy and are pretty
cheap


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Bill Noble wrote:

Harbor Freight frequently sells a magnetic base with a dial type
plunge indicator for around $15 for the pair - these come in handy
and are pretty cheap


I bought one for a little more in Canadian $s. The problem are the clamps.
They stick on one hand and on the other they are difficult to tighten
properly. On occasion I found that one or the other have come loose while
taking a measurment and one has to start all over again. Also, as I
mentioned elsewhere, the indicator has a habit of a non-repeatable zero (the
plunger can return to the same spot showing a variation of about 4/1000".)

I do not know if it is my set or if this is common to all cheap sets or
indeed all sets. Seeing, however, that the prices of similar kits vary
between about $30 and $300 I suspect that there is something one buys for
the extra $$$s. Am I wrong?

In my simple way of thinking I considered that the smallest number of joints
between the dial and the fixed point has to be a good thing. Hence my
interest in that little mag holder.

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

"Michael Koblic" wrote in message
...
snip---

1) I trammed the table and it is level to within 1/1000" - I checked it
again just to make sure.

If that operation was accomplished by placing an indicator point on the
table, then traversing the table, the only thing you determined is how
closely the table surface tracks with the ways. If that's the test you
performed, it was a waste of time.

Why do I get a queasy feeling that you may have located the holes by moving
the saddle instead of the table, with the vise jaws parallel to the table
front and back, but the part mounted in the vise such that it was at a right
angle? If you held your part by the ends instead of by the sides,
that's your problem. If you did not, ignore this comment. Do not ignore
the one about the indicator and the table surface, however.

In order to determine if the spindle is at a right angle, you must spin an
indicator from the spindle (slowly, by hand), sweeping the table surface.
Does that make sense to you?

2) The vise is on a base with two slots and rotates. Mindful of the advice
in the MIT clips I did just that - gradually tightened the screws that
control the rotation and gently tapped the vise with a dead blow hammer to
make the corrections.

Unless you have need for a rotating vise, you'll find you will achieve far
better success mounting your vise directly on the table. You gain head
room, and often a greater degree of precision. I've seen far more vise
bases gathering dust than I've seen in use on machines. They are generally
avoided by those of us in the trade.

3) I cannot stop the spindle rotating, even in the lowest gear.

It's not necessary to do so. If your spindle that is left free isn't steady
enough to use for an indicator, your setup is suspect. In all my more
than 50 years on the machines, I've never had need to lock the spindle.
I do advise a decent DTI for this application, however. A Starrett last
word is not amongst my recommendations. I own one, along with several B&S
BesTest indicators. The Starrett never gets used because it lacks the
necessary precision. So you'll understand that I'm not bashing Starrett,
my toolbox is almost entirely Starrett-----my only complaint is the Last
Word, which is a disgrace.

Harold

On Nov 26, 10:25*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
...eBook on French military victories...
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7294
That's gotta be a _short_ book, wot? bseg

It's longer than it should have been, he's French and couldn't resist
rambling on about fear and bravery. But it does explain ancient
infantry and cavalry tactics quite well, enough to make Xenophon
easier to follow;
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1170
I learned fire and maneuver during the Vietnam era and never
understood a line of troops marching into musket fire. He explains why
a volley made so few if any hits. He wrote in the period of new
weapons and old tactics, when military thinkers observed the changes
but didn't correctly predict the solutions, a major cause of the
stalemate of WW1. I think that inventors overwhelmed military minds
with a flood of bad technical solutions and made them distrust
everything, including the few really good ones. We have that now with
alternate energy.

Harold, indicating the table isn't a waste on a mill-drill. On the one
I bought the tee slots were on a slight angle to the ways. I made
accurate keys for the vise by fitting the keys snugly into the slots
and then milling a step on both top edges that was automatically
parallel to table travel.

Jim Wilkins

In article , Michael Koblic wrote:
In article ,
says...


In article , "Michael Koblic"
wrote:
Phil Kangas wrote:

On my old Millport (Bridgeport clone from Taiwan) there is a
boss with a set
screw near the quill lock through which I can insert a rod
with a D.I.. That
way the movement of the quill is not even considered. Much
more stable
and quick to use. You want the face of the chuck in line
with the table
movement., right?

I am not entirely sure. All I can see is a need for a point which is a)
rigid and b) independent of the table movement to which I attach the
indicator so I can run the face of the vise jaw past it and see if it moves.
The chuck is the logical choice. In my case there is the added complication
of having to arrange the indicator on its supporting rods so it can a)
present the point as near as possible to right angle at the vise jaw face
and b) can be read - it required some thought!

I can see a test indicator in my Christmas stocking, but same problem will
ensue if I attach it to a chuck that can move. Using the bar to stop the
spindle movement (as when changing MT3 attachments) still allows some
movement.

While you are at it, ask Santa for an Indicol (on sale at Enco, by
the way). This not only allows more flexibility in mounting an
indicator, but allows you to leave tooling in the spindle it you have to
indicate something. I use it for aligning my vise, but also for tramming
the head. It can swing out far enough to get a very sensitive tramming
measurement. I have the additional "Adjustol" rod, but never use it.


I searched Enco and as far as I gather Indicol is a maker of dial-related
things. Many items came up. Do you have the specifics?

http://www.use-enco.com/cgi/INLMPI?P...1841&PMPAGE=31

or search of part # SG891-5414, on sale for $35.99

Page 345 of the master catalog has a collection of them for
different sized spindle noses.

Doug White

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
snip-----
Harold, indicating the table isn't a waste on a mill-drill. On the one
I bought the tee slots were on a slight angle to the ways. I made
accurate keys for the vise by fitting the keys snugly into the slots
and then milling a step on both top edges that was automatically
parallel to table travel.

Jim Wilkins

I agree with your process, Jim. If the T slots are not parallel to table
travel, that makes sense. However, I think you got the wrong impression of
my comment, or I flat missed what was said. Certainly could be the case.

What is a waste of time is running the table side to side with an indicator
in contact with the table surface. It doesn't determine head orientation,
it simply displays error in tracking of the table, which may be caused by
improper machining of the surface, or perhaps sagging of the casting. I
got the impression his intended purpose was to square the spindle with the
table surface, and that, of course, can not be accomplished by what I
stated. .

The vise, of course, would be properly oriented by this function, where it
passes the fixed indicator as the table is moved side to side. The
purpose is to establish a parallel plane between the travel of the table and
the vise fixed jaw.

Harold

Michael Koblic wrote:
The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the table and had at it
with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After much effort I got it
down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I could not seem to do better.
Anyway, for the job in mind I was not too concerned.

The work went swimmingly: It involved drilling three holes down the center
of a 2.5" piece of a 7/16" key stock. I laid out the centres just to be sure
and used a centre finder on the first one - center drilled, drilled, repeat
three times by moving the Y-axis with the X-axis locked.

To my surprise the holes came out on a diagonal. Very slight but noticeable
to a naked eye and confirmed by measurement - and not a subtle 0.002"
either!

The only reason I can think of is that I screwed up the vise alignment
(duh!) but why? Is it because the indicator is attached to the spindle in a
drill chuck and the spindle has a freedom to move with every adjustment to
the vise I make? I have seen this procedure on two videos and unless I am
missing something everyone does it this way, i.e. indicator in a chuck.

I lock the spindle, and make sure that the way
everything is aligned, the slight rocking of the
spindle will not seriously affect the measurement.
So, the indicator is as perpendicular to the
vise jaw as I can get it. Rocking the spindle
should cause only the slightest movement of the
reading. Then, I run the vise back and forth
several times until I get it square. I recheck
after final tightening of the vise bolts to make
sure it didn't shift or more likely distort from
the bolting force.

If you aligned the vise by moving the X axis,
maybe the X and Y are not orthogonal (Hope this
isn't the case!)

Jon

Michael Koblic wrote:


I searched Enco and as far as I gather Indicol is a maker of dial-related
things. Many items came up. Do you have the specifics?

I was going to get the small magentic attachment Little Machine Shop sells for
about $5. I am sick of struggling with the contraption I have.
It has a C-shaped piece that wraps around the
spindle nose and a screw that secures it to the
spindle. It has a 3-piece articulated arm that
holds the indicator. These generally only fit
machines that have a spindle nose very close to
the same as a Bridgeport 1J or 2J head. You need
a spindle lock to keep the spindle from turning
very much. If you align the indicator feeler
right, this slight rocking will have far less than
..001" effect on the reading. You can check that
this is true by just rocking the spindle by hand.
If the reading doesn't change, then you have the
feeler pointed right at the vise jaw. Some vise
jaws are not quite straight, so you check both
ends and ignore the middle reading.

Jon

Michael Koblic wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

Clamp around the quill, not the spindle. if you have to, use a hose
clamp and a bit of strap to make something to hang your indicator
from.

that is what I do. On the other hand..you can indeed chuck your
indicator in a drill chuck..but put the spindle into lock mode...with
the motor off, put it i n the lowerst gear you have. less likely for
the spindle to turn. Its pretty sure that your spindle turned while
you were indicating.

Or your mill is way way way out of alighment G


Thanks.

I should fill in some details:

1) I trammed the table and it is level to within 1/1000" - I checked it
again just to make sure.
2) The vise is on a base with two slots and rotates. Mindful of the advice
in the MIT clips I did just that - gradually tightened the screws that
control the rotation and gently tapped the vise with a dead blow hammer to
make the corrections.
Yup, I bought one of those boat anchors, too. I
used the swivel one time, was APPALLED at the
flexibility of the whole stack, pulled the vise
off the swivel base and have never used it again.
It is actually EASIER to align the vise without
the swivel, you loosen only ONE bolt and tap the
vise a little to adjust the end the indicator is
reading, then run down to the other end.
3) I cannot stop the spindle rotating, even in the lowest gear.
That is a problem. How to you change the tool
with the drawbar?

Jon

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
"Michael Koblic" wrote in message
...
snip---

1) I trammed the table and it is level to within 1/1000" - I checked
it again just to make sure.

If that operation was accomplished by placing an indicator point on
the table, then traversing the table, the only thing you determined
is how closely the table surface tracks with the ways. If that's
the test you performed, it was a waste of time.

I did not.


Why do I get a queasy feeling that you may have located the holes by
moving the saddle instead of the table, with the vise jaws parallel
to the table front and back, but the part mounted in the vise such
that it was at a right angle? If you held your part by the ends
instead of by the sides, that's your problem. If you did not, ignore
this comment. Do not ignore the one about the indicator and the
table surface, however.

I did not. It was clamped parallel to the Y-axis by the long sides.


In order to determine if the spindle is at a right angle, you must
spin an indicator from the spindle (slowly, by hand), sweeping the
table surface. Does that make sense to you?

That's what I did.

Unless you have need for a rotating vise, you'll find you will
achieve far better success mounting your vise directly on the table. You
gain head room, and often a greater degree of precision. I've
seen far more vise bases gathering dust than I've seen in use on
machines. They are generally avoided by those of us in the trade.

I can see that. However, now that I got the vise sorted, I do not *dare* to
change anything :-) If I have to take it off I will certainly consider
ridding myself of the base.

If your spindle that is left free isn't
steady enough to use for an indicator, your setup is suspect.

Very...:-)

In all my more than 50 years on the machines, I've never had need to
lock the spindle. I do advise a decent DTI for this application, however.
A Starrett
last word is not amongst my recommendations. I own one, along with
several B&S BesTest indicators. The Starrett never gets used
because it lacks the necessary precision. So you'll understand
that I'm not bashing Starrett, my toolbox is almost entirely
Starrett-----my only complaint is the Last Word, which is a disgrace.

I sense one coming around the 24th of December. As I mentioned elsewhere, I
cannot see how one can make measurments to 1/1000" if the random zero error
is about 3-4/1000". This has to be addressed.

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

Jon Elson wrote:
Yup, I bought one of those boat anchors, too. I
used the swivel one time, was APPALLED at the
flexibility of the whole stack, pulled the vise
off the swivel base and have never used it again.
It is actually EASIER to align the vise without
the swivel, you loosen only ONE bolt and tap the
vise a little to adjust the end the indicator is
reading, then run down to the other end.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I suspect that is coming. Right now I am so
pleased that everything is square I do not want to disturb anything. The
family has to walk around the machine on tippy toes and speak softly in its
presence.

3) I cannot stop the spindle rotating, even in the lowest gear.
That is a problem. How to you change the tool
with the drawbar?

There is a hole at the top which accepts a tommy bar of sorts. This stops
the spindle rotating and the drawbar can be unscrewed. To change just the
bit I have two collet keys - one holds the top of the spindle steady and the
other one does the business.

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

Jon Elson wrote:
Michael Koblic wrote:
The new vise arrived today. Eagerly I clamped it to the table and
had at it with my indicator (NB - *not* a test indicator). After
much effort I got it down to 2/1000" in 2" which is not great but I
could not seem to do better. Anyway, for the job in mind I was not
too concerned. The work went swimmingly: It involved drilling three holes
down the
center of a 2.5" piece of a 7/16" key stock. I laid out the centres
just to be sure and used a centre finder on the first one - center
drilled, drilled, repeat three times by moving the Y-axis with the
X-axis locked. To my surprise the holes came out on a diagonal. Very
slight but
noticeable to a naked eye and confirmed by measurement - and not a
subtle 0.002" either!

The only reason I can think of is that I screwed up the vise
alignment (duh!) but why? Is it because the indicator is attached to
the spindle in a drill chuck and the spindle has a freedom to move
with every adjustment to the vise I make? I have seen this procedure
on two videos and unless I am missing something everyone does it
this way, i.e. indicator in a chuck.
I lock the spindle, and make sure that the way
everything is aligned, the slight rocking of the
spindle will not seriously affect the measurement.
So, the indicator is as perpendicular to the
vise jaw as I can get it. Rocking the spindle
should cause only the slightest movement of the
reading. Then, I run the vise back and forth
several times until I get it square. I recheck
after final tightening of the vise bolts to make
sure it didn't shift or more likely distort from
the bolting force.

The spindle does not lock, that is one of the problems. But I solved that
now.

If you aligned the vise by moving the X axis,
maybe the X and Y are not orthogonal (Hope this
isn't the case!)

Now you are frightening me! I did basically what you did but it never
occured to me to check that the X and Y are orthogonal. Job for tomorrow...

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...
Michael Koblic wrote:


I searched Enco and as far as I gather Indicol is a maker of dial-related
things. Many items came up. Do you have the specifics?

I was going to get the small magentic attachment Little Machine Shop
sells for about $5. I am sick of struggling with the contraption I have.
It has a C-shaped piece that wraps around the spindle nose and a screw
that secures it to the spindle. It has a 3-piece articulated arm that
holds the indicator. These generally only fit machines that have a
spindle nose very close to the same as a Bridgeport 1J or 2J head. You
need a spindle lock to keep the spindle from turning very much. If you
align the indicator feeler right, this slight rocking will have far less
than .001" effect on the reading. You can check that this is true by just
rocking the spindle by hand. If the reading doesn't change, then you have
the feeler pointed right at the vise jaw. Some vise jaws are not quite
straight, so you check both ends and ignore the middle reading.

Jon

Locking a BP spindle doesn't eliminate motion. You have the slop of the
plastic keys that will permit minimal spindle rotation, albeit very little.
Any is too much if you rely on the spindle to be locked dead. It is for that
reason I suggested that a setup is suspect if motion of any kind is a
problem. An indictor held at the right attitude in a drill chuck with the
spindle free will serve perfectly well. You just have to use good judgment
when making the setup. That incudes using an indicator that is sensitive.

Harold

Just out of curiousity, I wonder if the indicator error occurs every time
the pointer goes a full turn?

Dial indicator's pointers typically rest past zero, but if you don't need to
indicate the full range of the indicator (1 inch or 1000 x .001"), you can
start the measurement at any spot on the plunger travel.

You shouldn't have to (the one you have is messed up), but it might give
better/more consistent results if you use a different area of the plunger
travel.

If this dial indicator can't be returned for a good replacement or refund,
take it apart just for the experience of seeing the tiny internal parts, and
also to eliminate any future frustrations of measurement errors.

--
WB
..........
metalworking projects
www.kwagmire.com/metal_proj.html


"Michael Koblic" wrote in message
...

snippages

I sense one coming around the 24th of December. As I mentioned elsewhere,
I cannot see how one can make measurments to 1/1000" if the random zero
error is about 3-4/1000". This has to be addressed.

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:25:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:10:04 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:10:58 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 26, 4:52*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
...
Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

I've been reading this eBook on French military victories by an author
with the same misplaced contempt for Prussian field artillery;
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7294


thanks! Ill read that over the holidays.

That's gotta be a _short_ book, wot? bseg

Indeed. Marshal Foch was an interesting charector. He managed to get
about 6 million young Frenchmen killed.

I just finished _Ricochet: Confessions of an NRA Lobbyist_ and _Bran
Mak Morn_ this week. I don't know which was more gory.

ROFLMAO

Its been raining for a week here, the back 40 is either under standing
water, or has 4" of mud on it, so it limits my ability to do some
stuff...Im trying to clean up the shop today...sigh...

Gunner


---
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
--John Wayne (1907 - 1979)

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:01:27 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

I learned fire and maneuver during the Vietnam era and never
understood a line of troops marching into musket fire. He explains why
a volley made so few if any hits. He wrote in the period of new
weapons and old tactics, when military thinkers observed the changes
but didn't correctly predict the solutions, a major cause of the
stalemate of WW1. I think that inventors overwhelmed military minds
with a flood of bad technical solutions and made them distrust
everything, including the few really good ones. We have that now with
alternate energy.


Hiram Maxim changed the face of war forever, as did Herr Krupp.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:02:27 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:25:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:10:04 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:10:58 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

I've been reading this eBook on French military victories by an author
with the same misplaced contempt for Prussian field artillery;

thanks! Ill read that over the holidays.

That's gotta be a _short_ book, wot? bseg

Indeed. Marshal Foch was an interesting charector. He managed to get
about 6 million young Frenchmen killed.

Um, OUCH! C'est la guerre, non?


I just finished _Ricochet: Confessions of an NRA Lobbyist_ and _Bran
Mak Morn_ this week. I don't know which was more gory.

ROFLMAO

Its been raining for a week here, the back 40 is either under standing
water, or has 4" of mud on it, so it limits my ability to do some
stuff...Im trying to clean up the shop today...sigh...

We've had fog and thick overcast/40F temps daily for a couple weeks
now. I'd almost welcome rain and intermittent sun for awhile.

--
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
-- Bertrand Russell

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:22:11 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:01:27 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

I learned fire and maneuver during the Vietnam era and never
understood a line of troops marching into musket fire. He explains why
a volley made so few if any hits. He wrote in the period of new
weapons and old tactics, when military thinkers observed the changes
but didn't correctly predict the solutions, a major cause of the
stalemate of WW1. I think that inventors overwhelmed military minds
with a flood of bad technical solutions and made them distrust
everything, including the few really good ones. We have that now with
alternate energy.


Hiram Maxim changed the face of war forever, as did Herr Krupp.

Respectively, they gave us the new/improved gatling gun and the
coffemaker, right? gd&wvvf

--
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
-- Bertrand Russell

"Wild_Bill" wrote in message
...
Just out of curiousity, I wonder if the indicator error occurs every time
the pointer goes a full turn?

Dial indicator's pointers typically rest past zero, but if you don't need
to indicate the full range of the indicator (1 inch or 1000 x .001"), you
can start the measurement at any spot on the plunger travel.

You shouldn't have to (the one you have is messed up), but it might give
better/more consistent results if you use a different area of the plunger
travel.

If this dial indicator can't be returned for a good replacement or refund,
take it apart just for the experience of seeing the tiny internal parts,
and also to eliminate any future frustrations of measurement errors.


You are right. I fiddled until I found a point where the zero was more or
less consistent and did the set up there.
I think it was Jim Wilkins that led me to formulate the policy "the cheaper
the tool, the more expensive the measuring equipment needs to be".

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:50:40 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:22:11 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:01:27 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

I learned fire and maneuver during the Vietnam era and never
understood a line of troops marching into musket fire. He explains why
a volley made so few if any hits. He wrote in the period of new
weapons and old tactics, when military thinkers observed the changes
but didn't correctly predict the solutions, a major cause of the
stalemate of WW1. I think that inventors overwhelmed military minds
with a flood of bad technical solutions and made them distrust
everything, including the few really good ones. We have that now with
alternate energy.


Hiram Maxim changed the face of war forever, as did Herr Krupp.

Respectively, they gave us the new/improved gatling gun and the
coffemaker, right? gd&wvvf


Ayup. WW1, was the last war fought with 18th and 19th century battle
tactics such as the mass charge towards the other fellows lines

Unfortunately a large percentage of the Generals attended St. Cyre and
other bastions of military science that hadnt got the word that they
were facing a new age.

The saying is that "we are always fighting the last war" has a great
deal of truth to it. We develope tactics and methods during the war we
are in, and pass em along. The next war of course is completely
different and they start fighting it with the tactics from the last war.

Shrug..thats why Herr Shicklegrubbers Blitzkrieg was so effective.
Surprise and lightening speed. And the end run around te Maginot Line..a
marvelous bit of engineering that was suitible for 1917, but became a
death trap in 1940.

The current war in the Sandbox...we had some practice in 1991..but it
was largely a replay of the Blitzkrieg. We didnt have to learn about
asymetrical warfare..last time we had any of that was in Nam..and it was
a jungle war for the most part. Hearts and minds and lighting up the
jungle.

In the sand box..hearts and minds and lighting up minnows swimming
amoung the schools of fish.

Shrug..we learn, and we learn well, but it takes us time..on the job
training.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Nov 28, 9:17*pm, "Michael Koblic" wrote:
...
You are right. I fiddled until I found a point where the zero was more or
less consistent and did the set up there.
I think it was Jim Wilkins that led me to formulate the policy "the cheaper
the tool, the more expensive the measuring equipment needs to be".

Or at least the less you can trust, the more you should check. I have
a similar problem from the half century of wear on my old American
iron.

Measuring practice says that the instrument should be 10 times better
than the error being measured, in practice 2X is often enough. You can
probably check a mill-drill well enough with an indicator graduated to
0.001". The RF-31 I bought had ~0.010" of tilt over 5" in the Z axis.

You may not be able to correct any errors you find but you will know
what machining accuracy you can assume and where you have to take
extra precautions. For instance that tilted quill didn't cause us any
problems making R&D electronics parts. If we were reboring small
engine cylinders we might have shimmed the column base.

My lathe and mill will hit 0.005" from the dials, then I measure and
take light cuts. They aren't worn that badly, much of it is from the
vise or chuck. If I am working on a newer mill with a DRO I can
usually locate to 0.001" or better, such as making two separate jig
parts that will fit together with dowel pins. At home I have to clamp
both pieces together and ream through each hole, or use the tedious
disk/button method.

Jim Wilkins

On Nov 29, 8:05*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:50:40 -0800, Larry Jaques
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:22:11 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:01:27 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins ecrit:

Hiram Maxim changed the face of war forever, as did Herr Krupp.
Respectively, they gave us the new/improved gatling gun and the
coffemaker, right? * gd&wvvf

Ayup. * *WW1, was the last war fought with 18th and 19th century battle
tactics such as the mass charge towards the other fellows lines

The Russians and Japanese in 1905 first figured out how to use machine
guns in the attack. Before that they were seen as fixed artillery, but
real artillery outranged and destroyed them.

The bloodiest British attack, the Somme, ended with a cavalry charge
through and behind the German lines. The charge succeeded but the rest
of the force was too weakened to take advantage of it.

The saying is that "we are always fighting the last war" has a great
deal of truth to it. We develope tactics and methods during the war we
are in, and pass em along. The next war of course is completely
different and they start fighting it with the tactics from the last war.

You're right. I've worked at a think tank that tries to see ahead, and
it's almost impossible to detect (or ADMIT) the weakness in your own
methods that the enemy will find and exploit. You have to predict and
cover all of them, they only need one. Before Pearl Harbor the
Japanese dropped hints of attacks all over the Pacific, even in Peru,
so we didn't know which ones were real. We suspected they would attack
the Panama Canal locks with sub-launched aircraft and assumed Pearl
was safe because it was too shallow for OUR air-dropped torpedos.

Shrug..thats why Herr Shicklegrubbers Blitzkrieg was so effective.
Surprise and lightening speed.

That was mainly due to Guderian, Rommel & co, both of whom had
engineering as well as military training. The rest of the Wehrmacht
marched on foot. Guderian was temporarily fired for advancing too
fast, Rommel was lost to his own headquarters which stopped sending
supplies. That speed record he set was in France, not the open desert.
They both knew how to create and exploit confusion. Neither did very
well against a properly organized defense, ie Tobruk.

...
Shrug..we learn, and we learn well, but it takes us time..on the job
training.
Gunner

If you plan for the most dangerous attacks, you buy time to adjust to
the lesser ones. There was never a chance the VC or NVA could throw us
out of Nam. We left only after reconciling with the real threat,
China, which also gave up on Vietnam and fought (lost) a short war
with them later.

JW