This is the type of discussion that is way, way about slow eddy's head and for sure it's way above the head of any of Mark Wieber's clique of idiots.

This discussion was started by the former head of software engineering for CNC Software which produces Mastercam. He worked for them for 8 years. As many know, I'm a very strong critic of Mastercam and the major reason why is they continue to refuse to do what their former head of software engineering wanted them to do.

Right now CADCAM programming is very inefficient. The reason it's inefficient can be found in this link and other links that branch off of it. This is the type of discussion that cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet or in pay for play advertising based metalworking magazines like slow eddy works for.

There is simply nothing like my LinkedIn group, CADCAM Technology Leaders, anywhere else. It's membership reads like a who's who of the CADCAM business.

Most people in the CADCAM business realize that things have to change and that pay for play CADCAM magazines are old school and aren't effective. You will never find worthless ad copywriters like slow eddy in my LinkedIn group. The reason for that should be obvious to anyone who is objective and to those who take the time to understand the subject matter in this discussion:

https://lnkd.in/d2TBrMc

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 6:21:18 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
This is the type of discussion that is way, way about slow eddy's head and for sure it's way above the head of any of Mark Wieber's clique of idiots..

This discussion was started by the former head of software engineering for CNC Software which produces Mastercam. He worked for them for 8 years. As many know, I'm a very strong critic of Mastercam and the major reason why is they continue to refuse to do what their former head of software engineering wanted them to do.

Right now CADCAM programming is very inefficient. The reason it's inefficient can be found in this link and other links that branch off of it. This is the type of discussion that cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet or in pay for play advertising based metalworking magazines like slow eddy works for.

There is simply nothing like my LinkedIn group, CADCAM Technology Leaders, anywhere else. It's membership reads like a who's who of the CADCAM business.

Most people in the CADCAM business realize that things have to change and that pay for play CADCAM magazines are old school and aren't effective. You will never find worthless ad copywriters like slow eddy in my LinkedIn group. The reason for that should be obvious to anyone who is objective and to those who take the time to understand the subject matter in this discussion:

https://lnkd.in/d2TBrMc



While worthless pay for play ad copywriter slow eddy is pretending to know Cadkey in another thread, the main author of Cadkey (who has helped to create many other CADCAM products since)is an active participant in my LinkedIn group. slow eddy is far too stupid to know who he is.

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:30:52 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 6:21:18 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
This is the type of discussion that is way, way about slow eddy's head and for sure it's way above the head of any of Mark Wieber's clique of idiots.

This discussion was started by the former head of software engineering for CNC Software which produces Mastercam. He worked for them for 8 years. As many know, I'm a very strong critic of Mastercam and the major reason why is they continue to refuse to do what their former head of software engineering wanted them to do.

Right now CADCAM programming is very inefficient. The reason it's inefficient can be found in this link and other links that branch off of it. This is the type of discussion that cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet or in pay for play advertising based metalworking magazines like slow eddy works for.

There is simply nothing like my LinkedIn group, CADCAM Technology Leaders, anywhere else. It's membership reads like a who's who of the CADCAM business.

Most people in the CADCAM business realize that things have to change and that pay for play CADCAM magazines are old school and aren't effective. You will never find worthless ad copywriters like slow eddy in my LinkedIn group. The reason for that should be obvious to anyone who is objective and to those who take the time to understand the subject matter in this discussion:

https://lnkd.in/d2TBrMc



While worthless pay for play ad copywriter slow eddy is pretending to know Cadkey in another thread, the main author of Cadkey (who has helped to create many other CADCAM products since)is an active participant in my LinkedIn group. slow eddy is far too stupid to know who he is.

New comments added.

On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your Linkedin
group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save us all a lot of
trouble?

--
Snag

On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your Linkedin
group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save us all a lot of
trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your
Linkedin group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save us
all a lot of trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.

I sure do enjoy an evening of Medleys Mellow Bourbon shots occasionally
.... of course the morning after isn't always pleasant .
But I don't have to be drunk to bitch-slap banqueer. Hey jonny , I'm still
waiting to hear about the last or ANY project you actually did . In the
next few days I plan to start making the patterns and casting the pieces to
build a Gingery shaper . I think I can build a rotating workholder assembly
to cut helical gears using gears I will make on my milling machine to get
the rotation needed .
--
Snag

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:15:20 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your
Linkedin group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save us
all a lot of trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.

I sure do enjoy an evening of Medleys Mellow Bourbon shots occasionally
... of course the morning after isn't always pleasant .
But I don't have to be drunk to bitch-slap banqueer. Hey jonny , I'm still
waiting to hear about the last or ANY project you actually did . In the
next few days I plan to start making the patterns and casting the pieces to
build a Gingery shaper . I think I can build a rotating workholder assembly
to cut helical gears using gears I will make on my milling machine to get
the rotation needed .

There's an ambitious man. You could step back and consider smelting
the aluminum for the Gingery shaper, but then you're have to build a
hydroelectric plant first. d8-)

That's a heck of a project, Terry. I suspect you'll have a lot to tell
us for...hmmm...maybe a year, if you have a lot of spare time.

This calculator may save some time:

http://www.mesys.ch/?page_id=169&lang=en

--
Ed Huntress (former gearmaking editor at _American Machinist_; hats
off and good luck)

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:15:20 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your
Linkedin group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save
us all a lot of trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.

I sure do enjoy an evening of Medleys Mellow Bourbon shots
occasionally ... of course the morning after isn't always pleasant .
But I don't have to be drunk to bitch-slap banqueer. Hey jonny ,
I'm still waiting to hear about the last or ANY project you
actually did . In the next few days I plan to start making the
patterns and casting the pieces to build a Gingery shaper . I think
I can build a rotating workholder assembly to cut helical gears
using gears I will make on my milling machine to get the rotation
needed .

There's an ambitious man. You could step back and consider smelting
the aluminum for the Gingery shaper, but then you're have to build a
hydroelectric plant first. d8-)

That's a heck of a project, Terry. I suspect you'll have a lot to tell
us for...hmmm...maybe a year, if you have a lot of spare time.

This calculator may save some time:

http://www.mesys.ch/?page_id=169&lang=en

Thanks Ed , that page is getting bookmarked . The gearcutting will come
later , for now I'll be happy to just get the shaper built and running . And
spare time is the one thing I do have , being retired has opened up a whole
world of possibilities . I pretty much do what I want when I want these
days - as long as it doesn't conflict much with what the wife wants .

--
Snag

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:14:03 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:15:20 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your
Linkedin group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save
us all a lot of trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.

I sure do enjoy an evening of Medleys Mellow Bourbon shots
occasionally ... of course the morning after isn't always pleasant .
But I don't have to be drunk to bitch-slap banqueer. Hey jonny ,
I'm still waiting to hear about the last or ANY project you
actually did . In the next few days I plan to start making the
patterns and casting the pieces to build a Gingery shaper . I think
I can build a rotating workholder assembly to cut helical gears
using gears I will make on my milling machine to get the rotation
needed .

There's an ambitious man. You could step back and consider smelting
the aluminum for the Gingery shaper, but then you're have to build a
hydroelectric plant first. d8-)

That's a heck of a project, Terry. I suspect you'll have a lot to tell
us for...hmmm...maybe a year, if you have a lot of spare time.

This calculator may save some time:

http://www.mesys.ch/?page_id=169&lang=en

Thanks Ed , that page is getting bookmarked . The gearcutting will come
later , for now I'll be happy to just get the shaper built and running . And
spare time is the one thing I do have , being retired has opened up a whole
world of possibilities . I pretty much do what I want when I want these
days - as long as it doesn't conflict much with what the wife wants .

That sounds like a good retirement. Some people find it easy; my dad
couldn't stand it, and went back to work --three times. g I almost
tried it last year, until I was asked to edit a fabricating magazine,
and I couldn't resist. Now I'm working more than I have in years. But
I'm loving it.

One question about your project: Are you planning to use involute
cutters, like the shape used in gear milling, or are you trying to
replicate a Fellows gear shaper and generating the teeth?

It it's the former, it sounds like a big challenge, but doable. If
it's the latter, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

--
Ed Huntress

On 12/16/2014 8:21 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
This is the type of discussion that is way, way about slow eddy's head and for sure it's way above the head of any of Mark Wieber's clique of idiots.

Ahh! bet that feels good, got your little fix of degrading others.

Have you ever pondered why that is important to you?

What it does for your psyche to continuously degrade others.

I'm sure very occasionally you have some introspection, and you're
shocked when you ask yourself, "Why do I do that".


Mikek


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:14:03 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:15:20 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your
Linkedin group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save
us all a lot of trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.

I sure do enjoy an evening of Medleys Mellow Bourbon shots
occasionally ... of course the morning after isn't always pleasant
. But I don't have to be drunk to bitch-slap banqueer. Hey jonny ,
I'm still waiting to hear about the last or ANY project you
actually did . In the next few days I plan to start making the
patterns and casting the pieces to build a Gingery shaper . I think
I can build a rotating workholder assembly to cut helical gears
using gears I will make on my milling machine to get the rotation
needed .

There's an ambitious man. You could step back and consider smelting
the aluminum for the Gingery shaper, but then you're have to build a
hydroelectric plant first. d8-)

That's a heck of a project, Terry. I suspect you'll have a lot to
tell us for...hmmm...maybe a year, if you have a lot of spare time.

This calculator may save some time:

http://www.mesys.ch/?page_id=169&lang=en

Thanks Ed , that page is getting bookmarked . The gearcutting will
come later , for now I'll be happy to just get the shaper built and
running . And spare time is the one thing I do have , being retired
has opened up a whole world of possibilities . I pretty much do what
I want when I want these days - as long as it doesn't conflict
much with what the wife wants .

That sounds like a good retirement. Some people find it easy; my dad
couldn't stand it, and went back to work --three times. g I almost
tried it last year, until I was asked to edit a fabricating magazine,
and I couldn't resist. Now I'm working more than I have in years. But
I'm loving it.

One question about your project: Are you planning to use involute
cutters, like the shape used in gear milling, or are you trying to
replicate a Fellows gear shaper and generating the teeth?

It it's the former, it sounds like a big challenge, but doable. If
it's the latter, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

Probably involute . I have Ivan Law's book on gearcutting for a place to
start . And I have access to the largest database in the world ...

--
Snag

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

One question about your project: Are you planning to use involute
cutters, like the shape used in gear milling, or are you trying to
replicate a Fellows gear shaper and generating the teeth?

It it's the former, it sounds like a big challenge, but doable. If
it's the latter, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

--
Ed Huntress

Does CNC make feeding a rack-tooth-shaped cutter across the
synchronously rotating blank practical?
-jsw

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:24:41 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

One question about your project: Are you planning to use involute
cutters, like the shape used in gear milling, or are you trying to
replicate a Fellows gear shaper and generating the teeth?

It it's the former, it sounds like a big challenge, but doable. If
it's the latter, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

--
Ed Huntress

Does CNC make feeding a rack-tooth-shaped cutter across the
synchronously rotating blank practical?
-jsw

A good thought, but the short answer is "no."

The problem with an incremental-stroke approach to generating gears is
that it requires multiple storkes at very short intervals, as the
blank rotates.

A hobber effectively does this by having multiple cutters displaced
around a cylinder, and by rotating both the tool and the work to have
a sequence of cutters entering the work at close intervals.

A Fellows gear shaper does it with a lot of tool strokes at brief
intervals, as the gear blank rotates slowly.

There was a machine built by Gleason in the late '70s, called the
G-Track, that used rack-type cutters as you describe. But there were
dozens of them chained together. The chain moved continuously as the
blank rotated, acting like a shaper with multiple "racks." Or you
could think of the tool as something like a push broach, with one
cutter quickly following the previous one.

The relationships are mechanically simple, so CNC only gives you one
thing: quick-change versatility. You can set up for a different gear
very quickly with CNC. But it doesn't simplify the geometry, except to
replace one or both gear trains with some kind of servos. That's now
most modern gear hobbers work. I haven't seen a gear shaper for 30
years, but I assume they've applied the same technology to them.
CNC is a big setup-time saver, but that's about it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:08:04 PM UTC-8, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your Linkedin
group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save us all a lot of
trouble?

--
Snag

Coombs, you are so ****ing dumb you can't even spell, CAD. You have been dead from the neck up for years.

Now get back on your knees and do what you do best.

On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:48:16 AM UTC-8, Mikey tried to play amateur shrink to cover up his lack of metalworking skills and failed:

Amateur shrink bull**** snipped.

Nothing to respond to.

On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:23:29 AM UTC-8, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your Linkedin
group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save us all a lot of
trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.


Coombs doesn't think.

Coombs, like you, is a proud member of Mark Wieber's clique of idiots for a reason.

On Friday, December 19, 2014 6:15:30 AM UTC-8, Terry Coombs wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your
Linkedin group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save us
all a lot of trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.

I sure do enjoy an evening of Medleys Mellow Bourbon shots occasionally
... of course the morning after isn't always pleasant .
But I don't have to be drunk to bitch-slap banqueer. Hey jonny , I'm still
waiting to hear about the last or ANY project you actually did . In the
next few days I plan to start making the patterns and casting the pieces to
build a Gingery shaper . I think I can build a rotating workholder assembly
to cut helical gears using gears I will make on my milling machine to get
the rotation needed .
--
Snag


The only you thing you bitch slap is yourself, Coombs.

I think you need to bitch slap yourself harder as you haven't knocked any sense into yourself yet.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:24:41 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..

One question about your project: Are you planning to use involute
cutters, like the shape used in gear milling, or are you trying to
replicate a Fellows gear shaper and generating the teeth?

It it's the former, it sounds like a big challenge, but doable. If
it's the latter, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

--
Ed Huntress

Does CNC make feeding a rack-tooth-shaped cutter across the
synchronously rotating blank practical?
-jsw

A good thought, but the short answer is "no."

The problem with an incremental-stroke approach to generating gears
is
that it requires multiple storkes at very short intervals, as the
blank rotates.

A hobber effectively does this by having multiple cutters displaced
around a cylinder, and by rotating both the tool and the work to
have
a sequence of cutters entering the work at close intervals.

A Fellows gear shaper does it with a lot of tool strokes at brief
intervals, as the gear blank rotates slowly.

There was a machine built by Gleason in the late '70s, called the
G-Track, that used rack-type cutters as you describe. But there were
dozens of them chained together. The chain moved continuously as the
blank rotated, acting like a shaper with multiple "racks." Or you
could think of the tool as something like a push broach, with one
cutter quickly following the previous one.

The relationships are mechanically simple, so CNC only gives you one
thing: quick-change versatility. You can set up for a different
gear
very quickly with CNC. But it doesn't simplify the geometry, except
to
replace one or both gear trains with some kind of servos. That's now
most modern gear hobbers work. I haven't seen a gear shaper for 30
years, but I assume they've applied the same technology to them.
CNC is a big setup-time saver, but that's about it.

--
Ed Huntress

So not worth pursuing.

The rack-tooth-shaped cutter would actually be a dressed surface
grinder wheel, finishing one involute tooth space in a hardened form
tool.
-jsw

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:34:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:24:41 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

One question about your project: Are you planning to use involute
cutters, like the shape used in gear milling, or are you trying to
replicate a Fellows gear shaper and generating the teeth?

It it's the former, it sounds like a big challenge, but doable. If
it's the latter, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

--
Ed Huntress

Does CNC make feeding a rack-tooth-shaped cutter across the
synchronously rotating blank practical?
-jsw

A good thought, but the short answer is "no."

The problem with an incremental-stroke approach to generating gears
is
that it requires multiple storkes at very short intervals, as the
blank rotates.

A hobber effectively does this by having multiple cutters displaced
around a cylinder, and by rotating both the tool and the work to
have
a sequence of cutters entering the work at close intervals.

A Fellows gear shaper does it with a lot of tool strokes at brief
intervals, as the gear blank rotates slowly.

There was a machine built by Gleason in the late '70s, called the
G-Track, that used rack-type cutters as you describe. But there were
dozens of them chained together. The chain moved continuously as the
blank rotated, acting like a shaper with multiple "racks." Or you
could think of the tool as something like a push broach, with one
cutter quickly following the previous one.

The relationships are mechanically simple, so CNC only gives you one
thing: quick-change versatility. You can set up for a different
gear
very quickly with CNC. But it doesn't simplify the geometry, except
to
replace one or both gear trains with some kind of servos. That's now
most modern gear hobbers work. I haven't seen a gear shaper for 30
years, but I assume they've applied the same technology to them.
CNC is a big setup-time saver, but that's about it.

--
Ed Huntress

So not worth pursuing.

I don't think so. Multi-tooth cutters, like racks of teeth, are
advantageous in this context when multiple cutting teeth are engaged
at the same time. With a normal-width helical gear, the rack wouldn't
be a lot more effective than a single-point cutter.

I can't think of what advantage CNC would bring to it.


The rack-tooth-shaped cutter would actually be a dressed surface
grinder wheel, finishing one involute tooth space in a hardened form
tool.
-jsw

There are such things in industry, at least in the form of hobbers.
Several machine tool and tooling companies make helical grinding
wheels, which look like a gear hob without teeth, for doing that kind
of finishing -- even roughing. The finishing wheels are usually a
polyurethane-bonded, flexible wheel. You could make them at home.

Making gears, including making involute form tools, on a hobby basis
is a great subject for creative thinking. I try not to dismiss ideas,
but I've seen a lot of things tried by industry that didn't work out.
The G-Track, for example, died because the cost of regrinding the
rack-type toola, and disassembling and re-aslsembling the racks in the
chain, was excessive.

You're probably aware that milling gears with form tools is mostly a
repair/replacement operation. We did some of that in the job shop I
was involved with in the mid-70s. It is not the way to go for
precision gears or for production gear manufacturing. That's all
generating with gear hobbers and gear shapers, or push- or pull
broashing. Big internal ring gears, for example, like the ones used in
automotive planetary gearsets, are mostly pull-broached. One tool can
cost close to $100,000.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:34:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:24:41 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...

One question about your project: Are you planning to use
involute
cutters, like the shape used in gear milling, or are you trying
to
replicate a Fellows gear shaper and generating the teeth?

It it's the former, it sounds like a big challenge, but doable.
If
it's the latter, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

--
Ed Huntress

Does CNC make feeding a rack-tooth-shaped cutter across the
synchronously rotating blank practical?
-jsw

A good thought, but the short answer is "no."

The problem with an incremental-stroke approach to generating
gears
is
that it requires multiple storkes at very short intervals, as the
blank rotates.

A hobber effectively does this by having multiple cutters
displaced
around a cylinder, and by rotating both the tool and the work to
have
a sequence of cutters entering the work at close intervals.

A Fellows gear shaper does it with a lot of tool strokes at brief
intervals, as the gear blank rotates slowly.

There was a machine built by Gleason in the late '70s, called the
G-Track, that used rack-type cutters as you describe. But there
were
dozens of them chained together. The chain moved continuously as
the
blank rotated, acting like a shaper with multiple "racks." Or you
could think of the tool as something like a push broach, with one
cutter quickly following the previous one.

The relationships are mechanically simple, so CNC only gives you
one
thing: quick-change versatility. You can set up for a different
gear
very quickly with CNC. But it doesn't simplify the geometry,
except
to
replace one or both gear trains with some kind of servos. That's
now
most modern gear hobbers work. I haven't seen a gear shaper for 30
years, but I assume they've applied the same technology to them.
CNC is a big setup-time saver, but that's about it.

--
Ed Huntress

So not worth pursuing.

I don't think so. Multi-tooth cutters, like racks of teeth, are
advantageous in this context when multiple cutting teeth are engaged
at the same time. With a normal-width helical gear, the rack
wouldn't
be a lot more effective than a single-point cutter.

I can't think of what advantage CNC would bring to it.


The rack-tooth-shaped cutter would actually be a dressed surface
grinder wheel, finishing one involute tooth space in a hardened form
tool.
-jsw

There are such things in industry, at least in the form of hobbers.
Several machine tool and tooling companies make helical grinding
wheels, which look like a gear hob without teeth, for doing that
kind
of finishing -- even roughing. The finishing wheels are usually a
polyurethane-bonded, flexible wheel. You could make them at home.

Making gears, including making involute form tools, on a hobby basis
is a great subject for creative thinking. I try not to dismiss
ideas,
but I've seen a lot of things tried by industry that didn't work
out.
The G-Track, for example, died because the cost of regrinding the
rack-type toola, and disassembling and re-aslsembling the racks in
the
chain, was excessive.

You're probably aware that milling gears with form tools is mostly a
repair/replacement operation. We did some of that in the job shop I
was involved with in the mid-70s. It is not the way to go for
precision gears or for production gear manufacturing. That's all
generating with gear hobbers and gear shapers, or push- or pull
broashing. Big internal ring gears, for example, like the ones used
in
automotive planetary gearsets, are mostly pull-broached. One tool
can
cost close to $100,000.

--
Ed Huntress

Everything I make is a repair or one-off. Yesterday evening I turned a
1/2-20 to 5/8-18 adapter bushing to use a larger hole saw on a smaller
arbor that fits my 3/8" angle drill. The last gear I cut with a
shop-ground tool bit was a new steering sector for my tractor.
-jsw

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:34:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:24:41 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...

One question about your project: Are you planning to use
involute
cutters, like the shape used in gear milling, or are you trying
to
replicate a Fellows gear shaper and generating the teeth?

It it's the former, it sounds like a big challenge, but doable.
If
it's the latter, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

--
Ed Huntress

Does CNC make feeding a rack-tooth-shaped cutter across the
synchronously rotating blank practical?
-jsw

A good thought, but the short answer is "no."

The problem with an incremental-stroke approach to generating
gears
is
that it requires multiple storkes at very short intervals, as the
blank rotates.

A hobber effectively does this by having multiple cutters
displaced
around a cylinder, and by rotating both the tool and the work to
have
a sequence of cutters entering the work at close intervals.

A Fellows gear shaper does it with a lot of tool strokes at brief
intervals, as the gear blank rotates slowly.

There was a machine built by Gleason in the late '70s, called the
G-Track, that used rack-type cutters as you describe. But there
were
dozens of them chained together. The chain moved continuously as
the
blank rotated, acting like a shaper with multiple "racks." Or you
could think of the tool as something like a push broach, with one
cutter quickly following the previous one.

The relationships are mechanically simple, so CNC only gives you
one
thing: quick-change versatility. You can set up for a different
gear
very quickly with CNC. But it doesn't simplify the geometry,
except
to
replace one or both gear trains with some kind of servos. That's
now
most modern gear hobbers work. I haven't seen a gear shaper for 30
years, but I assume they've applied the same technology to them.
CNC is a big setup-time saver, but that's about it.

--
Ed Huntress

So not worth pursuing.

I don't think so. Multi-tooth cutters, like racks of teeth, are
advantageous in this context when multiple cutting teeth are engaged
at the same time. With a normal-width helical gear, the rack
wouldn't
be a lot more effective than a single-point cutter.

I can't think of what advantage CNC would bring to it.


The rack-tooth-shaped cutter would actually be a dressed surface
grinder wheel, finishing one involute tooth space in a hardened form
tool.
-jsw

There are such things in industry, at least in the form of hobbers.
Several machine tool and tooling companies make helical grinding
wheels, which look like a gear hob without teeth, for doing that
kind
of finishing -- even roughing. The finishing wheels are usually a
polyurethane-bonded, flexible wheel. You could make them at home.

Making gears, including making involute form tools, on a hobby basis
is a great subject for creative thinking. I try not to dismiss
ideas,
but I've seen a lot of things tried by industry that didn't work
out.
The G-Track, for example, died because the cost of regrinding the
rack-type toola, and disassembling and re-aslsembling the racks in
the
chain, was excessive.

You're probably aware that milling gears with form tools is mostly a
repair/replacement operation. We did some of that in the job shop I
was involved with in the mid-70s. It is not the way to go for
precision gears or for production gear manufacturing. That's all
generating with gear hobbers and gear shapers, or push- or pull
broashing. Big internal ring gears, for example, like the ones used
in
automotive planetary gearsets, are mostly pull-broached. One tool
can
cost close to $100,000.

--
Ed Huntress

Everything I make is a repair or one-off.

Same here.

Yesterday evening I turned a
1/2-20 to 5/8-18 adapter bushing to use a larger hole saw on a smaller
arbor that fits my 3/8" angle drill. The last gear I cut with a
shop-ground tool bit was a new steering sector for my tractor.
-jsw

That's pushing it. g My only point there was to make clear that
gears are not cut with form cutters, except as a last resort. They're
almost always a compromise, although they'll usually work if you don't
need extremely smooth conjugate action.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


Yesterday evening I turned a
1/2-20 to 5/8-18 adapter bushing to use a larger hole saw on a
smaller
arbor that fits my 3/8" angle drill. The last gear I cut with a
shop-ground tool bit was a new steering sector for my tractor.
-jsw

That's pushing it. g My only point there was to make clear that
gears are not cut with form cutters, except as a last resort.
They're
almost always a compromise, although they'll usually work if you
don't
need extremely smooth conjugate action.

--
Ed Huntress

Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather belt
driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:04:28 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


Yesterday evening I turned a
1/2-20 to 5/8-18 adapter bushing to use a larger hole saw on a
smaller
arbor that fits my 3/8" angle drill. The last gear I cut with a
shop-ground tool bit was a new steering sector for my tractor.
-jsw

That's pushing it. g My only point there was to make clear that
gears are not cut with form cutters, except as a last resort.
They're
almost always a compromise, although they'll usually work if you
don't
need extremely smooth conjugate action.

--
Ed Huntress

Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather belt
driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

There's a difference. The drive method doesn't have any necessary
affect on accuracy. And lots of bolts are single-point-turned,
including the con-rod bolts for the Cosworth racing engines that we
turned at Wasino -- an extreme example of demanding accuracy and
quality.

Milled gears never have a perfect profile. Even if you're making the
gear which is in the center of the cutter's range, the involute form
is compromised from *that* to allow non-interference without
undercutting, on gears cut near the largest end, and with a pressure
angle that avoids loading the gear tips at the smallest end.

In other words, it's *never* geometrically correct.

--
Ed Huntress

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


Yesterday evening I turned a
1/2-20 to 5/8-18 adapter bushing to use a larger hole saw on a
smaller
arbor that fits my 3/8" angle drill. The last gear I cut with a
shop-ground tool bit was a new steering sector for my tractor.
-jsw

That's pushing it. g My only point there was to make clear that
gears are not cut with form cutters, except as a last resort.
They're
almost always a compromise, although they'll usually work if you
don't
need extremely smooth conjugate action.

--
Ed Huntress

Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather belt
driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

Watch it bud , yer hittin' pretty close to home there ... though come to
think of it that doesn't apply to me . My antique lathe is using an
automotive serp belt for drive .

--
Snag

"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:



Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather belt
driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

Watch it bud , yer hittin' pretty close to home there ... though
come to think of it that doesn't apply to me . My antique lathe is
using an automotive serp belt for drive .
--
Snag

I like the leather belt drive. It disengages instantly when I thread
right up to a shoulder, while the motor is still coasting down, and
lets a bit dig in without much trouble, which I was glad of when
reworking some solid copper truck starter terminals into current shunt
bolts.
-jsw

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:



Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather belt
driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

Watch it bud , yer hittin' pretty close to home there ... though
come to think of it that doesn't apply to me . My antique lathe is
using an automotive serp belt for drive .
--
Snag

I like the leather belt drive. It disengages instantly when I thread
right up to a shoulder, while the motor is still coasting down, and
lets a bit dig in without much trouble, which I was glad of when
reworking some solid copper truck starter terminals into current shunt
bolts.
-jsw

Oh I'm using the original drive mechanism , just the belt has been replaced
.. I was using clipped belts from Logan , but kept pulling the clips out . At
40 bucks a pop for a new belt , I had my son the parts guy get me a serp
belt of the correct length . I can actually stall the motor now if I try .

--
Snag

"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:



Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather
belt
driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

Watch it bud , yer hittin' pretty close to home there ... though
come to think of it that doesn't apply to me . My antique lathe is
using an automotive serp belt for drive .
--
Snag

I like the leather belt drive. It disengages instantly when I
thread
right up to a shoulder, while the motor is still coasting down, and
lets a bit dig in without much trouble, which I was glad of when
reworking some solid copper truck starter terminals into current
shunt
bolts.
-jsw

Oh I'm using the original drive mechanism , just the belt has been
replaced . I was using clipped belts from Logan , but kept pulling
the clips out . At 40 bucks a pop for a new belt , I had my son the
parts guy get me a serp belt of the correct length . I can actually
stall the motor now if I try .

--
Snag

I set the belt loose enough that the motor can come up to speed if I
forget to disengage the back gear lever after tightening a collet, and
I can slip the spindle by tugging on the chuck key. Chucks are never
difficult to unscrew.
-jsw

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:35:11 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:



Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather belt
driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

Watch it bud , yer hittin' pretty close to home there ... though
come to think of it that doesn't apply to me . My antique lathe is
using an automotive serp belt for drive .
--
Snag

I like the leather belt drive. It disengages instantly when I thread
right up to a shoulder, while the motor is still coasting down, and
lets a bit dig in without much trouble, which I was glad of when
reworking some solid copper truck starter terminals into current shunt
bolts.
-jsw

Oh I'm using the original drive mechanism , just the belt has been replaced
. I was using clipped belts from Logan , but kept pulling the clips out . At
40 bucks a pop for a new belt , I had my son the parts guy get me a serp
belt of the correct length . I can actually stall the motor now if I try .

Flip it over, Terry. That'll relieve that little misstep.

--
With every experience, you alone are painting your
own canvas, thought by thought, choice by choice.
-- Oprah Winfrey

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:35:11 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:



Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather
belt driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

Watch it bud , yer hittin' pretty close to home there ... though
come to think of it that doesn't apply to me . My antique lathe is
using an automotive serp belt for drive .
--
Snag

I like the leather belt drive. It disengages instantly when I thread
right up to a shoulder, while the motor is still coasting down, and
lets a bit dig in without much trouble, which I was glad of when
reworking some solid copper truck starter terminals into current
shunt bolts.
-jsw

Oh I'm using the original drive mechanism , just the belt has been
replaced . I was using clipped belts from Logan , but kept pulling
the clips out . At 40 bucks a pop for a new belt , I had my son the
parts guy get me a serp belt of the correct length . I can actually
stall the motor now if I try .

Flip it over, Terry. That'll relieve that little misstep.

I seldom tighten the belt that much , no need to . I got really tired of
having to regrind cutters because the belt slipped in a heavy cut and the
cutter welded to the work . I've used this belt with both sides against the
pulleys , not a whole lot of difference .
--
Snag

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:01:03 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:35:11 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:



Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather
belt driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

Watch it bud , yer hittin' pretty close to home there ... though
come to think of it that doesn't apply to me . My antique lathe is
using an automotive serp belt for drive .
--
Snag

I like the leather belt drive. It disengages instantly when I thread
right up to a shoulder, while the motor is still coasting down, and
lets a bit dig in without much trouble, which I was glad of when
reworking some solid copper truck starter terminals into current
shunt bolts.
-jsw

Oh I'm using the original drive mechanism , just the belt has been
replaced . I was using clipped belts from Logan , but kept pulling
the clips out . At 40 bucks a pop for a new belt , I had my son the
parts guy get me a serp belt of the correct length . I can actually
stall the motor now if I try .

Flip it over, Terry. That'll relieve that little misstep.

I seldom tighten the belt that much , no need to . I got really tired of
having to regrind cutters because the belt slipped in a heavy cut and the
cutter welded to the work .

I can see where that would be counterproductive.


I've used this belt with both sides against the
pulleys , not a whole lot of difference .

That's interesting. Are you running on cogs or smooth pulleys?

--
With every experience, you alone are painting your
own canvas, thought by thought, choice by choice.
-- Oprah Winfrey

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:01:03 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:35:11 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:14:39 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:



Right, and threads aren't single-pointed on an antique leather
belt driven lathe, except by home hobbyists who haunt
rec.crafts.metalworking.
-jsw

Watch it bud , yer hittin' pretty close to home there ... though
come to think of it that doesn't apply to me . My antique lathe
is using an automotive serp belt for drive .
--
Snag

I like the leather belt drive. It disengages instantly when I
thread right up to a shoulder, while the motor is still coasting
down, and lets a bit dig in without much trouble, which I was
glad of when reworking some solid copper truck starter terminals
into current shunt bolts.
-jsw

Oh I'm using the original drive mechanism , just the belt has been
replaced . I was using clipped belts from Logan , but kept pulling
the clips out . At 40 bucks a pop for a new belt , I had my son the
parts guy get me a serp belt of the correct length . I can actually
stall the motor now if I try .

Flip it over, Terry. That'll relieve that little misstep.

I seldom tighten the belt that much , no need to . I got really
tired of having to regrind cutters because the belt slipped in a
heavy cut and the cutter welded to the work .

I can see where that would be counterproductive.


I've used this belt with both sides against the
pulleys , not a whole lot of difference .

That's interesting. Are you running on cogs or smooth pulleys?

Smooth flat pulleys , and no cogs on the belt , just lengthwise ribs . It
doesn't need to be all that tight unless I'm making hoggin' cuts to remove
stock quickly .
I really need to rebuild the reversing tumbler and stud gear assemblies .
Not only are the bushings worn , but the gear teeth have thinned enough to
detect with the naked eye . That 150 bucks I spent on a 16dp gear cutter set
is going to save me like a thousand on parts for that .
--
Snag

On 12/19/2014 1:20 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:48:16 AM UTC-8, Mikey tried to play amateur shrink to cover up his lack of metalworking skills and failed:

Amateur shrink bull**** snipped.

Nothing to respond to.


` Typical response early in treatment, the patient doesn't want to open
up and reveal his true inner defect.
That's OK, I'm here by your side to travel to that dark place.
Mikek

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 5:33:46 AM UTC-8, amdx wrote:
On 12/19/2014 1:20 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:48:16 AM UTC-8, Mikey tried to play amateur shrink to cover up his lack of metalworking skills and failed:

Amateur shrink bull**** snipped.

Nothing to respond to.


` Typical response early in treatment, the patient doesn't want to open
up and reveal his true inner defect.
That's OK, I'm here by your side to travel to that dark place.
Mikek


Sorry you are in such a dark place, Mike.

Consider you are who you surround yourself with.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 22:36:08 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:01:03 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:
Oh I'm using the original drive mechanism , just the belt has been
replaced . I was using clipped belts from Logan , but kept pulling
the clips out . At 40 bucks a pop for a new belt , I had my son the
parts guy get me a serp belt of the correct length . I can actually
stall the motor now if I try .

Flip it over, Terry. That'll relieve that little misstep.

I seldom tighten the belt that much , no need to . I got really
tired of having to regrind cutters because the belt slipped in a
heavy cut and the cutter welded to the work .

I can see where that would be counterproductive.


I've used this belt with both sides against the
pulleys , not a whole lot of difference .

That's interesting. Are you running on cogs or smooth pulleys?

Smooth flat pulleys , and no cogs on the belt , just lengthwise ribs . It

My Crom, am I that far removed from automotive work that I've
forgotten what a serpentine belt looks like? thud My last two
vehicles have been new, and I've had very little to do under the hood
since then except a few belts per decade since 1991. Astounding.
Har!


doesn't need to be all that tight unless I'm making hoggin' cuts to remove
stock quickly .

Make a sawtooth cutter for less resistance? (Juuuust kidding.)


I really need to rebuild the reversing tumbler and stud gear assemblies .
Not only are the bushings worn , but the gear teeth have thinned enough to
detect with the naked eye . That 150 bucks I spent on a 16dp

(Hadda look DP up: Diametral Pitch, right?
"The Diametral Pitch of a spur gear is equal to the Pitch Diameter
divided by the number of teeth on the gear. The Diametral Pitch of a
spur gear may also be calculated by adding 2 to the number of teeth on
the gear, and dividing that total by the Outside Diameter of the
gear.")


gear cutter set
is going to save me like a thousand on parts for that .

That's the great part about knowing how to build your own stuff, isn't
it? My life wouldn't be -nearly- as interesting if I wasn't a
full-blown tool user. How do the tool-fearing folks manage? Wow!

--
With every experience, you alone are painting your
own canvas, thought by thought, choice by choice.
-- Oprah Winfrey

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 22:36:08 -0600, "Terry Coombs"

wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:01:03 -0600, "Terry Coombs"

wrote:
Oh I'm using the original drive mechanism , just the belt has
been
replaced . I was using clipped belts from Logan , but kept
pulling
the clips out . At 40 bucks a pop for a new belt , I had my son
the
parts guy get me a serp belt of the correct length . I can
actually
stall the motor now if I try .

Flip it over, Terry. That'll relieve that little misstep.

I seldom tighten the belt that much , no need to . I got really
tired of having to regrind cutters because the belt slipped in a
heavy cut and the cutter welded to the work .

I can see where that would be counterproductive.


I've used this belt with both sides against the
pulleys , not a whole lot of difference .

That's interesting. Are you running on cogs or smooth pulleys?

Smooth flat pulleys , and no cogs on the belt , just lengthwise ribs
. It

My Crom, am I that far removed from automotive work that I've
forgotten what a serpentine belt looks like? thud My last two
vehicles have been new, and I've had very little to do under the
hood
since then except a few belts per decade since 1991. Astounding.
Har!


doesn't need to be all that tight unless I'm making hoggin' cuts to
remove
stock quickly .

Make a sawtooth cutter for less resistance? (Juuuust kidding.)


I really need to rebuild the reversing tumbler and stud gear
assemblies .
Not only are the bushings worn , but the gear teeth have thinned
enough to
detect with the naked eye . That 150 bucks I spent on a 16dp

(Hadda look DP up: Diametral Pitch, right?
"The Diametral Pitch of a spur gear is equal to the Pitch Diameter
divided by the number of teeth on the gear. The Diametral Pitch of
a
spur gear may also be calculated by adding 2 to the number of teeth
on
the gear, and dividing that total by the Outside Diameter of the
gear.")


gear cutter set
is going to save me like a thousand on parts for that .

That's the great part about knowing how to build your own stuff,
isn't
it? My life wouldn't be -nearly- as interesting if I wasn't a
full-blown tool user. How do the tool-fearing folks manage? Wow!

They probably wonder why we'd want anything we can't just buy.

Browning had relatively reasonable replacements for the munged gears
on my ex-trade school South Bend.
-jsw

On Friday, December 19, 2014 2:18:09 PM UTC-5, jon_banquer wrote:
On Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:08:04 PM UTC-8, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your Linkedin
group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save us all a lot of
trouble?

Coombs, you are so ****ing dumb you can't even
spell, CAD. You have been dead from the neck up
for years.

Being plastered from the neck up with that liquor he mentioned is OK in Terry's case, because he's a carpenter in a metalworking newsgroup. So its expected that he be constantly off-key in here.

(Most of the time, I suspect Terry's just playing the part of comedian here anyway, so it figures)

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:15:20 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your
Linkedin group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save us
all a lot of trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.

I sure do enjoy an evening of Medleys Mellow Bourbon shots occasionally
... of course the morning after isn't always pleasant .
But I don't have to be drunk to bitch-slap banqueer. Hey jonny , I'm still
waiting to hear about the last or ANY project you actually did . In the
next few days I plan to start making the patterns and casting the pieces to
build a Gingery shaper . I think I can build a rotating workholder assembly
to cut helical gears using gears I will make on my milling machine to get
the rotation needed .

Terry....why dont you simply BUY a good used shaper?

I know its fun to build one...but there are hundreds of them out there
for very very little money.

Ill bet you can get this one for under a grand..probably well under

http://stlouis.craigslist.org/tls/4809542926.html

And more....
http://bham.craigslist.org/tls/4808504899.html

http://kansascity.craigslist.org/tls/4810715570.html

http://springfieldil.craigslist.org/for/4809394278.html

And another..way too much money
http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/tls/4812903980.html\

Want a planer?

http://williamsport.craigslist.org/hvo/4807574239.html

Btw...blacksmithing stuff up for auction on the 27th

http://portland.craigslist.org/grg/tls/4812835048.html

.. My buddy Jim bought a G&L 16" universal shaper for $200 not long
ago.

They are out there.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:02:30 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:14:03 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:15:20 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:07 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/17/2014 8:11 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

jon , you're a prick and every thing you post is bull**** . Your
Linkedin group is bull**** too . Why don't you just die and save
us all a lot of trouble?


Just tell us what you REALLY think.

I sure do enjoy an evening of Medleys Mellow Bourbon shots
occasionally ... of course the morning after isn't always pleasant
. But I don't have to be drunk to bitch-slap banqueer. Hey jonny ,
I'm still waiting to hear about the last or ANY project you
actually did . In the next few days I plan to start making the
patterns and casting the pieces to build a Gingery shaper . I think
I can build a rotating workholder assembly to cut helical gears
using gears I will make on my milling machine to get the rotation
needed .

There's an ambitious man. You could step back and consider smelting
the aluminum for the Gingery shaper, but then you're have to build a
hydroelectric plant first. d8-)

That's a heck of a project, Terry. I suspect you'll have a lot to
tell us for...hmmm...maybe a year, if you have a lot of spare time.

This calculator may save some time:

http://www.mesys.ch/?page_id=169&lang=en

Thanks Ed , that page is getting bookmarked . The gearcutting will
come later , for now I'll be happy to just get the shaper built and
running . And spare time is the one thing I do have , being retired
has opened up a whole world of possibilities . I pretty much do what
I want when I want these days - as long as it doesn't conflict
much with what the wife wants .

That sounds like a good retirement. Some people find it easy; my dad
couldn't stand it, and went back to work --three times. g I almost
tried it last year, until I was asked to edit a fabricating magazine,
and I couldn't resist. Now I'm working more than I have in years. But
I'm loving it.

One question about your project: Are you planning to use involute
cutters, like the shape used in gear milling, or are you trying to
replicate a Fellows gear shaper and generating the teeth?

It it's the former, it sounds like a big challenge, but doable. If
it's the latter, abandon hope all ye who enter here.

Probably involute . I have Ivan Law's book on gearcutting for a place to
start . And I have access to the largest database in the world ...

Gear shaper? ****..the world is full of Fellows gear shapers for
under $800

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:48:08 -0600, amdx wrote:

On 12/16/2014 8:21 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
This is the type of discussion that is way, way about slow eddy's head and for sure it's way above the head of any of Mark Wieber's clique of idiots.

Ahh! bet that feels good, got your little fix of degrading others.

Have you ever pondered why that is important to you?

What it does for your psyche to continuously degrade others.

I'm sure very occasionally you have some introspection, and you're
shocked when you ask yourself, "Why do I do that".


Mikek


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Monday Ill be leveling a traveling track for a titanium rolling mill.
Its 250' long and has to be leveled to within .002 over the entire
length. In all axis.

Ill bet widdle Joniboi might get his flip flops dirty

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:56:01 AM UTC-8, Gunner Asch wrote:

Wieber bull**** snipped.


I want to thank Mark Wieber clique of idiots who keep this thread on top. :)