The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:15:24 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291
================
These sites may be of interest
http://tinyurl.com/nswh5g5
http://tinyurl.com/p2c92ln
http://tinyurl.com/n8n4z55
http://tinyurl.com/nol5lkc

enjoy


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:15:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

I dunno Jon, I read your Linkedin page, and I didn't see any "admissions" from anyone. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

That said, I spent the day yesterday at the Javits Center in NY attending the MD&M show http://mdmeast.mddionline.com . I spoke with plenty of manufacturers who use 3D printers to generate mold patterns, proofs of concept and finished products. These are real companies producing real products.

So, perhaps 3d printing has been overhyped in your world, but it certainly has not been in the world of medical devices - the surface is only beginning to be scratched.

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:00:22 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:15:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

I dunno Jon, I read your Linkedin page, and I didn't see any "admissions" from anyone. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

That said, I spent the day yesterday at the Javits Center in NY attending the MD&M show http://mdmeast.mddionline.com . I spoke with plenty of manufacturers who use 3D printers to generate mold patterns, proofs of concept and finished products. These are real companies producing real products.

So, perhaps 3d printing has been overhyped in your world, but it certainly has not been in the world of medical devices - the surface is only beginning to be scratched.

What's a LinkedIn page? You mean my LinkedIn group? If that is what you mean suggest you review the membership of my group. It's a virtual who's who of the CADCAM biz. Lots of discussions on the problems with 3D printing and why it's so over-hyped and the problems it's causing CADCAM.

Suggest you also review Seeking Alpha to see what stock holders think of a troubled 3D Systems.

You seem to mistakenly think I don't like 3D printing or that I don't feel it's viable. What you and others here are missing is that CADCAM companies don't want to fix their badly broken basics and instead want to focus on 3D printing. There is no venture capital available for new and better CADCAM as VC's think it's a solved problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:00:22 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:15:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

I dunno Jon, I read your Linkedin page, and I didn't see any "admissions" from anyone. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

That said, I spent the day yesterday at the Javits Center in NY attending the MD&M show http://mdmeast.mddionline.com . I spoke with plenty of manufacturers who use 3D printers to generate mold patterns, proofs of concept and finished products. These are real companies producing real products.

So, perhaps 3d printing has been overhyped in your world, but it certainly has not been in the world of medical devices - the surface is only beginning to be scratched.

What's a LinkedIn page? You mean my LinkedIn group? If that is what you mean suggest you review the membership of my group. It's a virtual who's who of the CADCAM biz. Lots of discussions on the problems with 3D printing and why it's so over-hyped and the problems it's causing CADCAM.

Suggest you also review Seeking Alpha to see what stock holders think of a troubled 3D Systems.

You seem to mistakenly think I don't like 3D printing or that I don't feel it's viable. What you and others here are missing is that CADCAM companies don't want to fix their badly broken basics and instead want to focus on 3D printing. There is no venture capital available for new and better CADCAM as VC's think it's a solved problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.

OK. I read the web page that you posted the link to, and I didn't see anyone "admitting" anything. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

If there is a problem with the CAM software available, then why don't you just say so, rather than "More people step up and admit 3D printing is over-hyped?" You seem to be saying that CAM software is lacking BECAUSE of 3D printing, and that simply makes no sense at all.

I am by no means an expert in this field. My 35 years' experience is in design of electronic systems. I work closely with mechanical designers and while I have some understanding of what they do, I don't pretend to be able to do it myself. OTOH, when I need to bang out a single piece of something, I either 3D print it or make it on my non-CNC mill and lathe.

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:08:47 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:00:22 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:15:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

I dunno Jon, I read your Linkedin page, and I didn't see any "admissions" from anyone. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

That said, I spent the day yesterday at the Javits Center in NY attending the MD&M show http://mdmeast.mddionline.com . I spoke with plenty of manufacturers who use 3D printers to generate mold patterns, proofs of concept and finished products. These are real companies producing real products.

So, perhaps 3d printing has been overhyped in your world, but it certainly has not been in the world of medical devices - the surface is only beginning to be scratched.

What's a LinkedIn page? You mean my LinkedIn group? If that is what you mean suggest you review the membership of my group. It's a virtual who's who of the CADCAM biz. Lots of discussions on the problems with 3D printing and why it's so over-hyped and the problems it's causing CADCAM.

Suggest you also review Seeking Alpha to see what stock holders think of a troubled 3D Systems.

You seem to mistakenly think I don't like 3D printing or that I don't feel it's viable. What you and others here are missing is that CADCAM companies don't want to fix their badly broken basics and instead want to focus on 3D printing. There is no venture capital available for new and better CADCAM as VC's think it's a solved problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.

OK. I read the web page that you posted the link to, and I didn't see anyone "admitting" anything. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently.. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

If there is a problem with the CAM software available, then why don't you just say so, rather than "More people step up and admit 3D printing is over-hyped?" You seem to be saying that CAM software is lacking BECAUSE of 3D printing, and that simply makes no sense at all.

I am by no means an expert in this field. My 35 years' experience is in design of electronic systems. I work closely with mechanical designers and while I have some understanding of what they do, I don't pretend to be able to do it myself. OTOH, when I need to bang out a single piece of something, I either 3D print it or make it on my non-CNC mill and lathe.

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

So what part of what this guy wrote don't you understand?

"The trouble I feel with 3D Printing is that it is giving people false hope in getting things to market faster. Designers think that if they can print it, you can manufacture it conventionally. I agree that it is useful to see what a component actually looks like in the real world, and to get a physical feel, but it doesn't mean you can actually manufacture it in volume. Undercuts get overlooked, split lines get missed, inaccessible features are modelled in, inconsistent wall thicknesses, the list goes on. I see this far too often, and I'm afraid to say that it is taking longer, and putting more owness on the manufacturer to explain the problems, and the designers that 3D printing is creating is causing a lot of headaches. I see it all too often. It's causing problems that would never of normally been overlooked and be designed out."

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:08:47 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:00:22 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:15:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

I dunno Jon, I read your Linkedin page, and I didn't see any "admissions" from anyone. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

That said, I spent the day yesterday at the Javits Center in NY attending the MD&M show http://mdmeast.mddionline.com . I spoke with plenty of manufacturers who use 3D printers to generate mold patterns, proofs of concept and finished products. These are real companies producing real products.

So, perhaps 3d printing has been overhyped in your world, but it certainly has not been in the world of medical devices - the surface is only beginning to be scratched.

What's a LinkedIn page? You mean my LinkedIn group? If that is what you mean suggest you review the membership of my group. It's a virtual who's who of the CADCAM biz. Lots of discussions on the problems with 3D printing and why it's so over-hyped and the problems it's causing CADCAM.

Suggest you also review Seeking Alpha to see what stock holders think of a troubled 3D Systems.

You seem to mistakenly think I don't like 3D printing or that I don't feel it's viable. What you and others here are missing is that CADCAM companies don't want to fix their badly broken basics and instead want to focus on 3D printing. There is no venture capital available for new and better CADCAM as VC's think it's a solved problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.

OK. I read the web page that you posted the link to, and I didn't see anyone "admitting" anything. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently.. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

If there is a problem with the CAM software available, then why don't you just say so, rather than "More people step up and admit 3D printing is over-hyped?" You seem to be saying that CAM software is lacking BECAUSE of 3D printing, and that simply makes no sense at all.

I am by no means an expert in this field. My 35 years' experience is in design of electronic systems. I work closely with mechanical designers and while I have some understanding of what they do, I don't pretend to be able to do it myself. OTOH, when I need to bang out a single piece of something, I either 3D print it or make it on my non-CNC mill and lathe.

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served


https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...85737188196354


"Jon, I'm usually a huge 3d printing skeptic but i agree. Carbon3D's technology could be a game changer. Not only does it offer an order of magnitude improvement in speed, but if it truly prints continuously, it completely alters the concept of print resolution.

At the same time, I see no evidence for this manufacturing paradigm shift towards a distributed model relying heavily on 3dp, which 'maker' types believe in."

rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
So what part of what this guy wrote don't you understand?

"The trouble I feel with 3D Printing is that it is giving people false
hope in getting things to market faster. Designers think that if they
can print it, you can manufacture it conventionally. I agree that it
is useful to see what a component actually looks like in the real
world, and to get a physical feel, but it doesn't mean you can
actually manufacture it in volume. Undercuts get overlooked, split
lines get missed, inaccessible features are modelled in, inconsistent
wall thicknesses, the list goes on. I see this far too often, and I'm
afraid to say that it is taking longer, and putting more owness on the
manufacturer to explain the problems, and the designers that 3D
printing is creating is causing a lot of headaches. I see it all too
often. It's causing problems that would never of normally been
overlooked and be designed out."

==============

That was a big problem back when the revolutionary new "pencil"
allowed any fool to become a draftsman.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/807...Assembly-Chart

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:33:18 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

I'm judged by my peers. You aren't my peer. You will never be my peer. You are a moron who thinks making a boring head makes you a machinist. It doesn't. I made a boring head when I was in trade school back in 1993. So did everyone else in my Adult Education class.

I've linked to many parts I've programmed. You're just too ****ing stupid to realize it.

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:40:55 PM UTC-7, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
So what part of what this guy wrote don't you understand?

"The trouble I feel with 3D Printing is that it is giving people false
hope in getting things to market faster. Designers think that if they
can print it, you can manufacture it conventionally. I agree that it
is useful to see what a component actually looks like in the real
world, and to get a physical feel, but it doesn't mean you can
actually manufacture it in volume. Undercuts get overlooked, split
lines get missed, inaccessible features are modelled in, inconsistent
wall thicknesses, the list goes on. I see this far too often, and I'm
afraid to say that it is taking longer, and putting more owness on the
manufacturer to explain the problems, and the designers that 3D
printing is creating is causing a lot of headaches. I see it all too
often. It's causing problems that would never of normally been
overlooked and be designed out."

==============

That was a big problem back when the revolutionary new "pencil"
allowed any fool to become a draftsman.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/807...Assembly-Chart

Now we have plenty of fools who think because they can use CAD that they can design. I constantly have to redesign their parts to make them machinable/machinable at a reasonable cost.

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:41:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
So what part of what this guy wrote don't you understand?

"The trouble I feel with 3D Printing is that it is giving people false
hope in getting things to market faster. Designers think that if they
can print it, you can manufacture it conventionally. I agree that it
is useful to see what a component actually looks like in the real
world, and to get a physical feel, but it doesn't mean you can
actually manufacture it in volume. Undercuts get overlooked, split
lines get missed, inaccessible features are modelled in, inconsistent
wall thicknesses, the list goes on. I see this far too often, and I'm
afraid to say that it is taking longer, and putting more owness on the
manufacturer to explain the problems, and the designers that 3D
printing is creating is causing a lot of headaches. I see it all too
often. It's causing problems that would never of normally been
overlooked and be designed out."

==============

That was a big problem back when the revolutionary new "pencil"
allowed any fool to become a draftsman.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/807...Assembly-Chart

It's even worse with a pencil. You can draw a blivet. I don't think
you can print one in 3D:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blivet

g

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:00:18 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:15:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

I dunno Jon, I read your Linkedin page, and I didn't see any "admissions" from anyone.

You aren't surprised about that, are you? d8-)

I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

"Design for production" has been a mantra in production for at least
50 years. Caterpillar was a pioneer, in the early '70s, at taking
their new design engineers and putting them on the shop floor for six
months before they'd let them design anything. My FIL was part of that
program at Cat's Aurora plant, teaching those new engineers how things
are actually made. It really paid off for Caterpillar, and other large
manufacturers picked up on the program. But not everyone caught on.


That said, I spent the day yesterday at the Javits Center in NY attending the MD&M show http://mdmeast.mddionline.com . I spoke with plenty of manufacturers who use 3D printers to generate mold patterns, proofs of concept and finished products. These are real companies producing real products.

So, perhaps 3d printing has been overhyped in your world, but it certainly has not been in the world of medical devices - the surface is only beginning to be scratched.

I took a look at the "admissions" comments Bonker's apparently is
referring to in the subject line, and it's all about one small aspect
of AM -- prototyping for conventional machining -- that isn't even
where the action is in AM anymore. Since they're involved in machining
and CAM, it's no surprise that's where their attention and interest
lies, but the real interest in AM has moved on.

Tooling, like the AM plastic fixturing, clamps, and gaging tools at
Volvo Trucks, is attracting a lot of interest. And scroll down to look
at the colored drawing of this mold insert:

http://tinyurl.com/okd2jgx

That thing is made of maraging steel, and it cycles 40% faster than a
conventionally milled or EDMed mold, because of those cooling
passages. They're a snap with AM, but impossible to machine in a
single piece. The company is doing a land-office business in making
those molds.

The irony here is that one or two of JB's commentators are bitching
that designers are 3D printing things that can't be machined (what
else is new? They've been drawing things that can't be machined for
eons.). But that mold cavity, and the fuel nozzles the turbine-engine
manufacturers are making with AM, are made with AM specifically
because they CAN'T be conventionally machined.

How many such parts will be uncovered is hard to say, but AM already
is moving past that stage, at least in terms of where the incentives
are driving the machine builders. The US Army, Navy and Air Force, and
domestic aircraft manufacturers, are using AM right now as a way to
make on-demand replacement parts for airplanes and military equipment.
That market potentially is huge, extended to civilian uses beyond
aircraft.

This "hype" subject came up months ago, and I pointed out at the time
that there certainly is a lot of hype about 3D printing in the
consumer press and in some segments of the trade press. It's possible
that the hype has penetrated the design and management departments of
some manufacturers. But the people who know what they're doing aren't
the ones who are hyping it (except in press releases). They're
building machines that are actually making parts, in both plastic and
metal, for a variety of industries. And the market is growing pretty
fast overall, even if it's a little herky-jerky. If the price of
full-melt metal AM systems comes down, there won't be any question
about it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
...
"Design for production" has been a mantra in production for at least
50 years. Caterpillar was a pioneer, in the early '70s, at taking
their new design engineers and putting them on the shop floor for
six
months before they'd let them design anything. My FIL was part of
that
program at Cat's Aurora plant, teaching those new engineers how
things
are actually made. It really paid off for Caterpillar, and other
large
manufacturers picked up on the program. But not everyone caught on.
...
--
Ed Huntress

I went through that myself as a production floor assembler and then a
pencil-and-paper draftsman at a maker of custom production test
equipment. They had electrical and mechanical engineers but the
project leader position I was working toward had to be a generalist
who knew some of both plus HVAC and industrial wiring and could use
tools.

The subject of the lesson was the design of structural sheetmetal to
be made on a press brake and Strippit punch. I didn't have to become
an expert at operating the machines, only understand the tolerances
they were capable of and the necessary sequence of operations, such as
punch ALL the holes and corner notches, THEN do the bending, and try
to minimize the inevitable match-drilling at final assembly.

As you say, not everyone can correctly imagine how the three
dimensional part will be made, and that includes some very smart
electrical engineers. A Physics professor I knew socially told me he
had switched majors from Chemistry because he couldn't visualize
molecular structures rotating and vibrating in three dimensions.

I was stuck for a while on how to accurately locate the bearing
press-out holes on the wheels I'm making. My mill doesn't have enough
vertical clearance to index the blanks in a chuck. I finally chucked
the disks in the milling vise and located the #10 (~3/16") tapped
holes as close as possible to both sides of the OD of the bearing
recess by feeling the clearance of a #2 drill/countersink to the wall
with paper.

So I still design features I don't know how to make, assuming I'll
figure out something later and change the drawing to match.

Two opposed holes were adequate when the first bearing was initially
pressed fairly hard into an 0.0004" interference fit. I could turn the
cap screws 1/6th turn alternately to press it out. The final fit is
close enough to turn the screws simultaneously with my fingers. The
electric trolley hoist will see so little use that wear if the
bearings shift isn't an issue. Mainly it will keep heavy logs away
from my feet. The HF manual I-beam trolley's bearings are quite loose
on their axles.

I'm trying to accustom myself to progressive (no-line, varifocal)
eyeglasses I bought yesterday. They shift continuously from
nearsightness correction at the top to slight magnification at the
bottom, with the result that only a few lines of text on the screen
are clear, though the sharp focus distance varies from 12" at the
bottom to seeing the bright stars Arcturus and Spica nearly as points
instead of blobs at the top. Also I can't use the larger monitors on
the shelf above the laptops without tilting my head up uncomfortably
or leaning back too far to type. Last night I detailed the CAD drawing
of the wheel axle on the 15" laptop screen, easily, instead of on the
22" display above it that I use without glasses.

I lost my previous company-issue glasses at a volunteer construction
project a few weeks ago after taking them off to start a balky
generator. They were probably trampled into the dirt, run over by a
skid-steer, then buried under tons of sand. Providentially I kept an
older pair in the car.

-jsw

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:41:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


That was a big problem back when the revolutionary new "pencil"
allowed any fool to become a draftsman.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/807...Assembly-Chart

It's even worse with a pencil. You can draw a blivet. I don't think
you can print one in 3D:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blivet

g

--
Ed Huntress

I found some good textbooks written to train the flood of new aircraft
and shipyard workers at the start of WW2. They differ in scale and
materials and tools but not much in the basics of turning flat stock
into 3D curves.

Scribing and torching a preassembled 300 ton superstructure to fit the
curving deck is a little beyond hobby work.

-jsw

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:03:33 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

snip


I'm trying to accustom myself to progressive (no-line, varifocal)
eyeglasses I bought yesterday. They shift continuously from
nearsightness correction at the top to slight magnification at the
bottom, with the result that only a few lines of text on the screen
are clear, though the sharp focus distance varies from 12" at the
bottom to seeing the bright stars Arcturus and Spica nearly as points
instead of blobs at the top. Also I can't use the larger monitors on
the shelf above the laptops without tilting my head up uncomfortably
or leaning back too far to type. Last night I detailed the CAD drawing
of the wheel axle on the 15" laptop screen, easily, instead of on the
22" display above it that I use without glasses.


I wore progressives for six years. I couldn't stand them while using
the computer. Mine were supposed to be the best Variluxes made. ($880
including frames -- thank God I had multiple insurance policies! I
paid $20.) Still, the narrow focus field made driving a little scary,
and the up-and-down head motion took a while to get used to.

Over this past winter I had cataract operations on both eyes. At the
end, the doctor said "You don't need glasses anymore." And he was
right. Except for reading. He told me to get some drug-store
magnifiers, which I did.

I liked progressives for one thing: shopping at the supermarket. g I
saved mine just for that one use.

Good luck with them. Some people have no trouble adjusting. It took me
some time.

--
Ed Huntress


I lost my previous company-issue glasses at a volunteer construction
project a few weeks ago after taking them off to start a balky
generator. They were probably trampled into the dirt, run over by a
skid-steer, then buried under tons of sand. Providentially I kept an
older pair in the car.

-jsw

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:03:33 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

snip


I'm trying to accustom myself to progressive (no-line, varifocal)
eyeglasses I bought yesterday.


Good luck with them. Some people have no trouble adjusting. It took
me
some time.

--
Ed Huntress

I loved them immediately for general use but they aren't so good for
the long, close work that I can do without glasses. I'll have to watch
out for situations where I might take them off without having a safe
place to store them, like that construction site. They aren't as bad
for that as the company-issue bifocals I lost whose lower section
wasn't really sharp any useful working distance. The eye doctor lacked
the equipment to test near vision so I asked that they at least make
the ground clear enough that I wouldn't trip, and suggested half the
correction of the top.

At home I have a deep bathtub soap basket on the wall at the foot of
the basement stairs to safely store eyeglasses, since I wear a
headband magnifier or safety glasses with reading sections in the
shop. There's a pair at each machine.

The extensive trilingual safety warnings on the bag take up so much
space that they are in a tiny font I can't read without opening the
bag and putting on the glasses. That's like Taylor Swift's remark
about the illogic of scissors that come in a blister package you can't
open without -- scissors!

-jsw

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:15:12 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:33:18 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

I'm judged by my peers. You aren't my peer. You will never be my peer.
You are a moron who thinks making a boring head makes you a machinist.
It doesn't. I made a boring head when I was in trade school back in
1993. So did everyone else in my Adult Education class.

I've linked to many parts I've programmed. You're just too ****ing
stupid to realize it.

Terry's just tries to get people's goat, that's all. You and most other "normal" people keep their schooling up and do things the thorough way. Why pay attention to any of these other jokers?

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:15:12 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:33:18 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

I'm judged by my peers. You aren't my peer. You will never be my peer.
You are a moron who thinks making a boring head makes you a machinist.
It doesn't. I made a boring head when I was in trade school back in
1993. So did everyone else in my Adult Education class.

I've linked to many parts I've programmed. You're just too ****ing
stupid to realize it.

Terry's just tries to get people's goat, that's all. You and most other "normal" people keep their schooling up and do things the thorough way. Why pay attention to any of these other jokers?

[...irony meter pegs, bends over, sticks...]

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:15:12 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:33:18 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

I'm judged by my peers. You aren't my peer. You will never be my peer.
You are a moron who thinks making a boring head makes you a machinist.
It doesn't. I made a boring head when I was in trade school back in
1993. So did everyone else in my Adult Education class.

I've linked to many parts I've programmed. You're just too ****ing
stupid to realize it.

Terry's just tries to get people's goat, that's all. You and most other "normal" people keep their schooling up and do things the thorough way. Why pay attention to any of these other jokers?

[...irony meter pegs, bends over, sticks...]

Think whatever you want to think. Its just that some people here acquire education and use the valuable skills. Others just don't want it. Period. Its like its "uncool" or something. Whatever it is, I don't get it.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:15:12 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:33:18 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

I'm judged by my peers. You aren't my peer. You will never be my peer.
You are a moron who thinks making a boring head makes you a machinist.
It doesn't. I made a boring head when I was in trade school back in
1993. So did everyone else in my Adult Education class.

I've linked to many parts I've programmed. You're just too ****ing
stupid to realize it.

Terry's just tries to get people's goat, that's all. You and most other "normal" people keep their schooling up and do things the thorough way. Why pay attention to any of these other jokers?

[...irony meter pegs, bends over, sticks...]

Think whatever you want to think.

That's what I do.

Its just that some people here acquire education and use the valuable skills.

Some of us do. And some people acquire the skill of faking it. As Snag
points out, most people have recognized that Banquer is faking it, for
a couple of decades. Where he can't control the conversation and
delete posts that point this out, he's in trouble and quickly has to
resort to vile slander. He's done it everywhere, for years. I'll be
glad to provide examples.

Take a look at alt.machines.cnc some time. That will give you a taste.

That's why LinkedIn is his perfect home.

Others just don't want it. Period. Its like its "uncool" or something. Whatever it is, I don't get it.

You get my vote for being the most gullible sucker currently on
Usenet.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 1:05:12 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:15:12 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:33:18 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

I'm judged by my peers. You aren't my peer. You will never be my peer.
You are a moron who thinks making a boring head makes you a machinist.
It doesn't. I made a boring head when I was in trade school back in
1993. So did everyone else in my Adult Education class.

I've linked to many parts I've programmed. You're just too ****ing
stupid to realize it.

Terry's just tries to get people's goat, that's all. You and most other "normal" people keep their schooling up and do things the thorough way. Why pay attention to any of these other jokers?

[...irony meter pegs, bends over, sticks...]

Think whatever you want to think.

That's what I do.

Its just that some people here acquire education and use the valuable skills.

Some of us do. And some people acquire the skill of faking it. As Snag
points out, most people have recognized that Banquer is faking it, for
a couple of decades. Where he can't control the conversation and
delete posts that point this out, he's in trouble and quickly has to
resort to vile slander. He's done it everywhere, for years. I'll be
glad to provide examples.

Take a look at alt.machines.cnc some time. That will give you a taste.

That's why LinkedIn is his perfect home.

Others just don't want it. Period. Its like its "uncool" or something. Whatever it is, I don't get it.

You get my vote for being the most gullible sucker currently on
Usenet.

No, I'm anything but gullible and I've seen alt.machines.cnc and I don't always get side tracked with off topic stuff like that. And I don't go there or even here as frequently as... say maybe... rec.arts.mystery or sci.electronics.repair. Its just better there IMHO. Yet, jon is still one of the most knowledgeable people here.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:41:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 1:05:12 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:15:12 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:33:18 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

I'm judged by my peers. You aren't my peer. You will never be my peer.
You are a moron who thinks making a boring head makes you a machinist.
It doesn't. I made a boring head when I was in trade school back in
1993. So did everyone else in my Adult Education class.

I've linked to many parts I've programmed. You're just too ****ing
stupid to realize it.

Terry's just tries to get people's goat, that's all. You and most other "normal" people keep their schooling up and do things the thorough way. Why pay attention to any of these other jokers?

[...irony meter pegs, bends over, sticks...]

Think whatever you want to think.

That's what I do.

Its just that some people here acquire education and use the valuable skills.

Some of us do. And some people acquire the skill of faking it. As Snag
points out, most people have recognized that Banquer is faking it, for
a couple of decades. Where he can't control the conversation and
delete posts that point this out, he's in trouble and quickly has to
resort to vile slander. He's done it everywhere, for years. I'll be
glad to provide examples.

Take a look at alt.machines.cnc some time. That will give you a taste.

That's why LinkedIn is his perfect home.

Others just don't want it. Period. Its like its "uncool" or something. Whatever it is, I don't get it.

You get my vote for being the most gullible sucker currently on
Usenet.

No, I'm anything but gullible and I've seen alt.machines.cnc and I don't always get side tracked with off topic stuff like that. And I don't go there or even here as frequently as... say maybe... rec.arts.mystery or sci.electronics.repair. Its just better there IMHO. Yet, jon is still one of the most knowledgeable people here.

As I said, you get my vote.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:15:24 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291
=================
FYI
http://tinyurl.com/o45x6wn
snip
The Airbus A350 XWB has more 3D-printed elements than any
other commercial passenger jet. The roughly 1,000 parts were
created in partnership with Stratasys, the additive
manufacturing company.

Stratasys reportedly used an ULTEM 9085 resin, which is
certified to an Airbus material specification, to fabricate
each part on an FDM 3D printer. The process melted the resin
and extruded it layer by layer until entire parts were
fabricated. This method produces parts that are lighter in
weight and strong, as well as being flame, smoke and
toxicity compliant.
/snip


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 10:41:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 1:05:12 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:15:12 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:33:18 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

I'm judged by my peers. You aren't my peer. You will never be my peer.
You are a moron who thinks making a boring head makes you a machinist.
It doesn't. I made a boring head when I was in trade school back in
1993. So did everyone else in my Adult Education class.

I've linked to many parts I've programmed. You're just too ****ing
stupid to realize it.

Terry's just tries to get people's goat, that's all. You and most other "normal" people keep their schooling up and do things the thorough way. Why pay attention to any of these other jokers?

[...irony meter pegs, bends over, sticks...]

Think whatever you want to think.

That's what I do.

Its just that some people here acquire education and use the valuable skills.

Some of us do. And some people acquire the skill of faking it. As Snag
points out, most people have recognized that Banquer is faking it, for
a couple of decades. Where he can't control the conversation and
delete posts that point this out, he's in trouble and quickly has to
resort to vile slander. He's done it everywhere, for years. I'll be
glad to provide examples.

Take a look at alt.machines.cnc some time. That will give you a taste.

That's why LinkedIn is his perfect home.

Others just don't want it. Period. Its like its "uncool" or something. Whatever it is, I don't get it.

You get my vote for being the most gullible sucker currently on
Usenet.

No, I'm anything but gullible and I've seen alt.machines.cnc and I don't always get side tracked with off topic stuff like that. And I don't go there or even here as frequently as... say maybe... rec.arts.mystery or sci.electronics.repair. Its just better there IMHO. Yet, jon is still one of the most knowledgeable people here.

Thanks.

Jon:

Rather than slamming 3d printing, how about an assist in
designing/processing the parts for printing?

Most of the posters have a knowledge of cad, and can create
a 3d wire form of an object. and have access to a cad
program.

What hints would you care to give to the group for creating
3d surfaces from a wire frame model, particularly compound
curved surfaces and inside corner radii, so these are
"manifold" and can be processed through a "slicer" program
to generate the FFF g-code file for 3d printing?

Do you know of any [free] VBA or AutoLISP macros or add-ons
to "skin" a DXF/IGES wire frame?


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:08:18 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:15:24 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291
=================
FYI
http://tinyurl.com/o45x6wn
snip
The Airbus A350 XWB has more 3D-printed elements than any
other commercial passenger jet. The roughly 1,000 parts were
created in partnership with Stratasys, the additive
manufacturing company.

Stratasys reportedly used an ULTEM 9085 resin, which is
certified to an Airbus material specification, to fabricate
each part on an FDM 3D printer. The process melted the resin
and extruded it layer by layer until entire parts were
fabricated. This method produces parts that are lighter in
weight and strong, as well as being flame, smoke and
toxicity compliant.
/snip

In aerospace, AM is producing turbine engine compressor blades, and
some driven turbine blades, from a chrome-cobalt superalloy. Other
parts are being made from maraging steel, precipitation-hardening
stainless (17-4 PH and others), and several grades of aluminum and
titanium. These are 100% dense; they're not sintered parts.

If you want a quick rundown of the metals they can print, the article
I linked to earlier gives the highlights. It just applies to the
laser-melting process. There are some other metals that are included
in the electron-beam-melting and other AM processes:

http://tinyurl.com/okd2jgx

The difficult part is applying AM to fast-quenching, heat-treatable
steels and other heat-treatable metals. That's where the research is
being applied now.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:32:00 AM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:
Jon:

Rather than slamming 3d printing, how about an assist in
designing/processing the parts for printing?

Most of the posters have a knowledge of cad, and can create
a 3d wire form of an object. and have access to a cad
program.

What hints would you care to give to the group for creating
3d surfaces from a wire frame model, particularly compound
curved surfaces and inside corner radii, so these are
"manifold" and can be processed through a "slicer" program
to generate the FFF g-code file for 3d printing?

Do you know of any [free] VBA or AutoLISP macros or add-ons
to "skin" a DXF/IGES wire frame?


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"


I'm going to continue to tell it like it is about 3D printing and CADCAM. So will others that are members of CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn.

No CADCAM company or 3D printing expert that I know of wants anything to do with Usenet. I completely understand why.

I haven't used AutoCAD in a over a decade. No machining job shop I know of uses AutoCAD any longer. AutoCAD is the past. I'm done with it. The only place I ever see AutoCAD is woodworking shops.

When I want to skin a wirefame I use Delcam PowerShape. Delcam employees are very active on CADCAM Technology Leaders.

If you or others choose to ignore what's clearly a very strong and successful group to get answers that's your choice. There is a ton of info on CADCAM Technology Leaders that you can't find anywhere else.

Times have changed and many machinists/CADCAM programers think Pay 4 Play rags like slow eddy works for can't be trusted.

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 10:05:12 AM UTC-7, slow eddy lied:

On 6/11/2015 11:54 AM, banQUEER failed again:

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:32:00 AM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:
Jon:

Rather than slamming 3d printing, how about an assist in
designing/processing the parts for printing?

Most of the posters have a knowledge of cad, and can create
a 3d wire form of an object. and have access to a cad
program.

What hints would you care to give to the group for creating
3d surfaces from a wire frame model, particularly compound
curved surfaces and inside corner radii, so these are
"manifold" and can be processed through a "slicer" program
to generate the FFF g-code file for 3d printing?

Do you know of any [free] VBA or AutoLISP macros or add-ons
to "skin" a DXF/IGES wire frame?


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"


I'm going to continue to tell it like it is about 3D printing and CADCAM. So will others that are members of CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn.

A worthless circle-jerk if there ever was one.

On 6/11/2015 11:08 AM, banQUEER failed:
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 10:41:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 1:05:12 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:15:12 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:33:18 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

A bunch of total bull****

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's
who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some
programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From
what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

In case you haven't figured it out yet , Jonnyboi doesn't actually know
jack**** about CNC , CADCAM , or anything else involved in machining . He is
, however , VERY good at blowing smoke up peoples asses . Just ask him for
any kind of details about his supposed current project , or any project he's
done in the past .
You'll hear nothing but a roaring silence (apologies to Manfred Mann) .
--
Snag

I'm judged by my peers. You aren't my peer. You will never be my peer.
You are a moron who thinks making a boring head makes you a machinist.
It doesn't. I made a boring head when I was in trade school back in
1993. So did everyone else in my Adult Education class.

I've linked to many parts I've programmed. You're just too ****ing
stupid to realize it.

Terry's just tries to get people's goat, that's all. You and most other "normal" people keep their schooling up and do things the thorough way. Why pay attention to any of these other jokers?

[...irony meter pegs, bends over, sticks...]

Think whatever you want to think.

That's what I do.

Its just that some people here acquire education and use the valuable skills.

Some of us do. And some people acquire the skill of faking it. As Snag
points out, most people have recognized that Banquer is faking it, for
a couple of decades. Where he can't control the conversation and
delete posts that point this out, he's in trouble and quickly has to
resort to vile slander. He's done it everywhere, for years. I'll be
glad to provide examples.

Take a look at alt.machines.cnc some time. That will give you a taste.

That's why LinkedIn is his perfect home.

Others just don't want it. Period. Its like its "uncool" or something. Whatever it is, I don't get it.

You get my vote for being the most gullible sucker currently on
Usenet.

No, I'm anything but gullible and I've seen alt.machines.cnc and I don't always get side tracked with off topic stuff like that. And I don't go there or even here as frequently as... say maybe... rec.arts.mystery or sci.electronics.repair. Its just better there IMHO. Yet, jon is still one of the most knowledgeable people here.

Thanks.

Bull**** sock puppetry.

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 4:15:28 PM UTC-7, jon_banquer wrote:
The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

New comments added!

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

Odd thing, I get all sorts of professional magazines and they
are having articles and products all of the time. Real stuff.
From Foundry to Nasa to product development and production mags.

So much is being lost by low end guys that they make excuses.

Martin

On 6/10/2015 10:18 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:40:55 PM UTC-7, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
So what part of what this guy wrote don't you understand?

"The trouble I feel with 3D Printing is that it is giving people false
hope in getting things to market faster. Designers think that if they
can print it, you can manufacture it conventionally. I agree that it
is useful to see what a component actually looks like in the real
world, and to get a physical feel, but it doesn't mean you can
actually manufacture it in volume. Undercuts get overlooked, split
lines get missed, inaccessible features are modelled in, inconsistent
wall thicknesses, the list goes on. I see this far too often, and I'm
afraid to say that it is taking longer, and putting more owness on the
manufacturer to explain the problems, and the designers that 3D
printing is creating is causing a lot of headaches. I see it all too
often. It's causing problems that would never of normally been
overlooked and be designed out."

==============

That was a big problem back when the revolutionary new "pencil"
allowed any fool to become a draftsman.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/807...Assembly-Chart

Now we have plenty of fools who think because they can use CAD that they can design. I constantly have to redesign their parts to make them machinable/machinable at a reasonable cost.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:03:33 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
...
"Design for production" has been a mantra in production for at least
50 years. Caterpillar was a pioneer, in the early '70s, at taking
their new design engineers and putting them on the shop floor for
six
months before they'd let them design anything. My FIL was part of
that
program at Cat's Aurora plant, teaching those new engineers how
things
are actually made. It really paid off for Caterpillar, and other
large
manufacturers picked up on the program. But not everyone caught on.
...
--
Ed Huntress

I went through that myself as a production floor assembler and then a
pencil-and-paper draftsman at a maker of custom production test
equipment. They had electrical and mechanical engineers but the
project leader position I was working toward had to be a generalist
who knew some of both plus HVAC and industrial wiring and could use
tools.

The subject of the lesson was the design of structural sheetmetal to
be made on a press brake and Strippit punch. I didn't have to become
an expert at operating the machines, only understand the tolerances
they were capable of and the necessary sequence of operations, such as
punch ALL the holes and corner notches, THEN do the bending, and try
to minimize the inevitable match-drilling at final assembly.

As you say, not everyone can correctly imagine how the three
dimensional part will be made, and that includes some very smart
electrical engineers. A Physics professor I knew socially told me he
had switched majors from Chemistry because he couldn't visualize
molecular structures rotating and vibrating in three dimensions.

LOTS of people can't think in 3D, so that doesn't surprise me at all.


I was stuck for a while on how to accurately locate the bearing
press-out holes on the wheels I'm making. My mill doesn't have enough
vertical clearance to index the blanks in a chuck. I finally chucked
the disks in the milling vise and located the #10 (~3/16") tapped
holes as close as possible to both sides of the OD of the bearing
recess by feeling the clearance of a #2 drill/countersink to the wall
with paper.

Whatever works!


So I still design features I don't know how to make, assuming I'll
figure out something later and change the drawing to match.

Isn't that the way it's always done? (see TBD dwg for reference)


Two opposed holes were adequate when the first bearing was initially
pressed fairly hard into an 0.0004" interference fit. I could turn the
cap screws 1/6th turn alternately to press it out. The final fit is
close enough to turn the screws simultaneously with my fingers. The
electric trolley hoist will see so little use that wear if the
bearings shift isn't an issue. Mainly it will keep heavy logs away
from my feet. The HF manual I-beam trolley's bearings are quite loose
on their axles.

To lower rolling resistance, I'm sure.


I'm trying to accustom myself to progressive (no-line, varifocal)
eyeglasses I bought yesterday. They shift continuously from
nearsightness correction at the top to slight magnification at the
bottom, with the result that only a few lines of text on the screen
are clear, though the sharp focus distance varies from 12" at the
bottom to seeing the bright stars Arcturus and Spica nearly as points
instead of blobs at the top. Also I can't use the larger monitors on
the shelf above the laptops without tilting my head up uncomfortably
or leaning back too far to type. Last night I detailed the CAD drawing
of the wheel axle on the 15" laptop screen, easily, instead of on the
22" display above it that I use without glasses.

Good luck. I nearly nuked a pair I tried a decade ago, but settled
for flowing plasma at both the optometrist and his assbite office
manager instead. After two weeks of severe headaches and a couple
near misses in the truck, I'd had it. They never told me that 80% of
the lens has no correction whatsoever, so my brain was left to handle
translation of my twin astigmatisms on its own. It didn't like that
after several decades of help from real eyeglasses, TYVM.


I lost my previous company-issue glasses at a volunteer construction
project a few weeks ago after taking them off to start a balky
generator. They were probably trampled into the dirt, run over by a
skid-steer, then buried under tons of sand. Providentially I kept an
older pair in the car.

Condolences. I lost a lens once, when a screw loosened; sucked.

Yes, always keep spares! That's another reason I like buying from
Zenni. An extra pair (stainless framed hi-index bifocals) costs about
$30, so I buy two pair at a time, keeping a pair with the brand new
prescription as a spare each time. My old prescriptions are in a
drawer, the new spares in the truck (now in my BOB) at all times.

--
Worrying does not take away tomorrow's troubles,
it takes away today's peace. --Lifehack

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:03:33 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

.....The HF manual I-beam trolley's bearings are quite loose
on their axles.

To lower rolling resistance, I'm sure.

Only if the ball bearings jam from dirt, which is possible since the
ones they used don't all have seals on the hidden side. They didn't
waste any extra effort making those things. I'm doing a more careful
job for the practice.

Yes, always keep spares! That's another reason I like buying from
Zenni. An extra pair (stainless framed hi-index bifocals) costs
about
$30, so I buy two pair at a time, keeping a pair with the brand new
prescription as a spare each time. My old prescriptions are in a
drawer, the new spares in the truck (now in my BOB) at all times.

How is Zenni to deal with? I got a second version of the prescription
for normal bifocals with reading lenses on the bottom which I think
would be good for driving and better for extended close work. My eyes
are too different for drugstore reading glasses to work well. I
speed-read which requires a wide field of sharp vision.

-jsw

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:16:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:03:33 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

.....The HF manual I-beam trolley's bearings are quite loose
on their axles.

To lower rolling resistance, I'm sure.

Only if the ball bearings jam from dirt, which is possible since the
ones they used don't all have seals on the hidden side. They didn't
waste any extra effort making those things. I'm doing a more careful
job for the practice.

(Psst! I was kidding.)


Yes, always keep spares! That's another reason I like buying from
Zenni. An extra pair (stainless framed hi-index bifocals) costs
about
$30, so I buy two pair at a time, keeping a pair with the brand new
prescription as a spare each time. My old prescriptions are in a
drawer, the new spares in the truck (now in my BOB) at all times.

How is Zenni to deal with? I got a second version of the prescription
for normal bifocals with reading lenses on the bottom which I think
would be good for driving and better for extended close work. My eyes
are too different for drugstore reading glasses to work well. I
speed-read which requires a wide field of sharp vision.

Indifferent, but that's usually not a problem. Watch your data entry.
I missed seeing a wee minus sign, so my first order was unwearable.
They offer 50% back if you return the order, so it's not an entire
loss. But it takes a month to happen.

With your speed reading, I strongly doubt you'll adapt to the new
progressive lenses, unless the page fits within the scope of the
progression. I'm highly sensitive to distortions, so I couldn't deal
at all. I'd sooner adapt to a bloody fisheye, I think. (Oh, no! Now
Gunner and Pete will think I hate/kill/destroy progressive lenses.
Hmm, maybe on this, they'd finally be right.

--
Worrying does not take away tomorrow's troubles,
it takes away today's peace. --Lifehack

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:16:11 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:08:47 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:00:22 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:15:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

I dunno Jon, I read your Linkedin page, and I didn't see any "admissions" from anyone. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

That said, I spent the day yesterday at the Javits Center in NY attending the MD&M show http://mdmeast.mddionline.com . I spoke with plenty of manufacturers who use 3D printers to generate mold patterns, proofs of concept and finished products. These are real companies producing real products.

So, perhaps 3d printing has been overhyped in your world, but it certainly has not been in the world of medical devices - the surface is only beginning to be scratched.

What's a LinkedIn page? You mean my LinkedIn group? If that is what you mean suggest you review the membership of my group. It's a virtual who's who of the CADCAM biz. Lots of discussions on the problems with 3D printing and why it's so over-hyped and the problems it's causing CADCAM.

Suggest you also review Seeking Alpha to see what stock holders think of a troubled 3D Systems.

You seem to mistakenly think I don't like 3D printing or that I don't feel it's viable. What you and others here are missing is that CADCAM companies don't want to fix their badly broken basics and instead want to focus on 3D printing. There is no venture capital available for new and better CADCAM as VC's think it's a solved problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.

OK. I read the web page that you posted the link to, and I didn't see anyone "admitting" anything. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

If there is a problem with the CAM software available, then why don't you just say so, rather than "More people step up and admit 3D printing is over-hyped?" You seem to be saying that CAM software is lacking BECAUSE of 3D printing, and that simply makes no sense at all.

I am by no means an expert in this field. My 35 years' experience is in design of electronic systems. I work closely with mechanical designers and while I have some understanding of what they do, I don't pretend to be able to do it myself. OTOH, when I need to bang out a single piece of something, I either 3D print it or make it on my non-CNC mill and lathe.

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

So what part of what this guy wrote don't you understand?

"The trouble I feel with 3D Printing is that it is giving people false hope in getting things to market faster. Designers think that if they can print it, you can manufacture it conventionally. I agree that it is useful to see what a component actually looks like in the real world, and to get a physical feel, but it doesn't mean you can actually manufacture it in volume. Undercuts get overlooked, split lines get missed, inaccessible features are modelled in, inconsistent wall thicknesses, the list goes on. I see this far too often, and I'm afraid to say that it is taking longer, and putting more owness on the manufacturer to explain the problems, and the designers that 3D printing is creating is causing a lot of headaches. I see it all too often. It's causing problems that would never of normally been overlooked and be designed out."

I understand all of it, Jon. And I don't disagree with any of it. But:
a) I STILL don't see anyone "admitting" anything.

b) It is not the fault of 3-D printing that these mistakes are getting made.. A lousy design is a lousy design, no matter what tools were used to create it. That some people are producing crap on 3-D printers does not mean that the technology is at fault.

There are plenty of people producing good, useful parts on the same printers, BTW, this week I saw a 3-D printer that embeds carbon fiber and/or Kevlar into nylon prints. This makes for some super tough parts that would most certainly be useful in fixturing applications.

c) Again, there seems to be, according to you (I wouldn't know, only being tangentially involved in the field) a gaping hole in the available software.. If your LinkedIn group really does have all the heavyweights in the field as members, why not put together a group to produce software that will fill such gaping holes?

What part of this don't you understand?

On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 6:17:21 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:16:11 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:08:47 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:54:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:00:22 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:15:28 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
The world has changed and many have had enough of Pay 4 Play liars like slow eddy.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/45...05975009292291

I dunno Jon, I read your Linkedin page, and I didn't see any "admissions" from anyone. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

That said, I spent the day yesterday at the Javits Center in NY attending the MD&M show http://mdmeast.mddionline.com . I spoke with plenty of manufacturers who use 3D printers to generate mold patterns, proofs of concept and finished products. These are real companies producing real products.

So, perhaps 3d printing has been overhyped in your world, but it certainly has not been in the world of medical devices - the surface is only beginning to be scratched.

What's a LinkedIn page? You mean my LinkedIn group? If that is what you mean suggest you review the membership of my group. It's a virtual who's who of the CADCAM biz. Lots of discussions on the problems with 3D printing and why it's so over-hyped and the problems it's causing CADCAM.

Suggest you also review Seeking Alpha to see what stock holders think of a troubled 3D Systems.

You seem to mistakenly think I don't like 3D printing or that I don't feel it's viable. What you and others here are missing is that CADCAM companies don't want to fix their badly broken basics and instead want to focus on 3D printing. There is no venture capital available for new and better CADCAM as VC's think it's a solved problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.

OK. I read the web page that you posted the link to, and I didn't see anyone "admitting" anything. I saw a discussion of the limitations of poorly thought out 3d prints which produce parts that can't be machined efficiently. The same could easily be said about ANY poorly designed part regardless of the techniques involved.

If there is a problem with the CAM software available, then why don't you just say so, rather than "More people step up and admit 3D printing is over-hyped?" You seem to be saying that CAM software is lacking BECAUSE of 3D printing, and that simply makes no sense at all.

I am by no means an expert in this field. My 35 years' experience is in design of electronic systems. I work closely with mechanical designers and while I have some understanding of what they do, I don't pretend to be able to do it myself. OTOH, when I need to bang out a single piece of something, I either 3D print it or make it on my non-CNC mill and lathe.

If CAM software is really so lacking, why don't you and your "who's who" of the CADCAM biz get together and hire yourselves some programming staff and kick the asses of the existing companies? From what you say, there's a tremendous market waiting to be served.

So what part of what this guy wrote don't you understand?

"The trouble I feel with 3D Printing is that it is giving people false hope in getting things to market faster. Designers think that if they can print it, you can manufacture it conventionally. I agree that it is useful to see what a component actually looks like in the real world, and to get a physical feel, but it doesn't mean you can actually manufacture it in volume. Undercuts get overlooked, split lines get missed, inaccessible features are modelled in, inconsistent wall thicknesses, the list goes on. I see this far too often, and I'm afraid to say that it is taking longer, and putting more owness on the manufacturer to explain the problems, and the designers that 3D printing is creating is causing a lot of headaches. I see it all too often. It's causing problems that would never of normally been overlooked and be designed out."

I understand all of it, Jon. And I don't disagree with any of it. But:
a) I STILL don't see anyone "admitting" anything.

b) It is not the fault of 3-D printing that these mistakes are getting made. A lousy design is a lousy design, no matter what tools were used to create it. That some people are producing crap on 3-D printers does not mean that the technology is at fault.

There are plenty of people producing good, useful parts on the same printers, BTW, this week I saw a 3-D printer that embeds carbon fiber and/or Kevlar into nylon prints. This makes for some super tough parts that would most certainly be useful in fixturing applications.

c) Again, there seems to be, according to you (I wouldn't know, only being tangentially involved in the field) a gaping hole in the available software. If your LinkedIn group really does have all the heavyweights in the field as members, why not put together a group to produce software that will fill such gaping holes?

What part of this don't you understand?


I understand that you don't grasp what the problems are. Not really sure what I can do about that.

3D carbon fiber printer? The one I was first to discuss in this group? That 3D carbon fiber printer?

I already explained why the basics in CAD, that have been broken for so long, aren't getting fixed. I see no reason to go over this again.