 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
jim rozen wrote in
: This is a restatement of my experience that "the new guys always gage parts *small* on the OD, and *large* on the bores. This is because consider the reading correct when the micrometer or caliper is cranked on/in there really tight. I used to tell them to run the parts tight/loose as the case would be, to get their lot to come in on target. But picking up a job that had been run unsupervised by a "new guy" during the day would invariably start with double-checking any measurement which required any kind of sensitive feel when gaging. Jim Tis precisely why I prefer air gauges, and LVDT gauges, when possible. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Anthony says...
really want to get into engine theory with me I'll blow you out of the f***ing water. That I wouldn't be so sure about Dave.. Uh oh. A nerd slap-down. Who's got the biggest piston....? This is not meant to be derogatory of course. We're all nerds here. I'm actually not sure on this - we may be Geeks instead. I've been informed that nerds and geeks are different. Nerds for example can be female apparently. But to be a geek you have to be male. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: automotive engine boring on a mill
From: Eric R Snow Date: 09/12/04 21:51 GMT Standard Time Message-id: On 09 Dec 2004 20:47:54 GMT, oEmails (Dave Baker) wrote: Subject: automotive engine boring on a mill From: Anthony Date: 08/12/04 23:54 GMT Standard Time Message-id: (Dave Baker) wrote in : snip all the rest This thread is about the boring and honing of engine blocks for engine reconditioning. I don't know why you and Robin keep trying to drag it into an argument about production line metrology which has nothing to do with the needs of a man trying to bore and hone the one engine he has in front of him at the time so that the bores are X thou bigger than the one set of new pistons he has in front of him at the same time. BTW....since you obviously didn't read enough of my post to answer my question, and you brought the subject up again here...Just where (on the piston) are you measuring the diameter of the piston to get the bore size? That's easy. You know how to accurately count the number of sheep in a field? You count the legs and divide by four. Well on the same principle, to measure a piston skirt you measure the i/d and add twice the skirt thickness  I understand there's no particular reason you ought to know what I do or that I'm one of the leading specialists in engine design and theory in the UK (you probably haven't bothered to read my website) and certainly none to know that I've designed and made pistons. By that I mean designed and made the casting moulds, the initial mandrel to hold and rough turn the machining datums into the casting, researched and specified the alloy, written the computer programme to calculate the major dimensions, section thicknesses and mass, specified the barreling and ovality, designed an elliptical turning system to produce the skirt profiles, researched and specified the pin bore to pin clearance and the methods of achieving it (fine bore followed by roller burnishing, fine bore followed by honing, reaming and/or followed by either), researched and specified the pin material, surface hardness and dimensions, researched and specified the ring spacing and ring groove to ring clearances. Most of the machining was done by a friend with CNC equipment to my specs but I did the initial rough turning and datum points for all the castings and to prove a point made a set from scratch on my Colchester Student including making the ring grooving tool and turning the ring grooves in, reaming the pin bores and oval turning the skirt profiles, building the test engine and then running that as my daily driver. So please, no bloody stupid room 101 test questions about where the datum point for measuring the o/d on a piston skirt is because if you really want to get into engine theory with me I'll blow you out of the f***ing water. Yeah Dave, but what do you really know about making pistons. I see, from you post, that you didn't mine the bauxite, or even collect the beer cans to melt down. You just specified the alloy. Sheesh! Cheers, Look we tried and we sank a couple of test drillings but there just seemed to be a bauxite shortage in the London area. What can you do? -- Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk) |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: automotive engine boring on a mill
From: Anthony Date: 10/12/04 00:07 GMT Standard Time Message-id: (Dave Baker) wrote in : I have looked at your site....and...regarding making pistons... Good for you...just curious....what groove inclination did you use? Nil - 90 degrees to the bore. Most of the machining was done by a friend with CNC equipment to my specs but I did the initial rough turning and datum points for all the castings and to prove a point made a set from scratch on my Colchester Student including making the ring grooving tool and turning the ring grooves in, reaming the pin bores and oval turning the skirt profiles, building the test engine and then running that as my daily driver. Again, nice. We produce ...ehh....somewhere in the neighborhood of 125,000 per day, just in the plant I work. Since you got my curiosity up...I was wondering... What kind of tolerances did you hold on the profiles, and ovalites? Well, since we were aiming for tolerances on the diameter in tenths but only had measuring equipment that read to tenths I'm sure you'll tell me we couldn't possibly determine our tolerances without measuring equipment that read, and of course was regularly certified, to read to hundedths. How did you measure the profile? Well we measured the i/d and added twice the skirt thickness. Oh I've already been down this route. What shape was the ovality?...a regular, linear ovality...a double oval shape...triple oval shape...or asymmetric? ....or did you just offset the piston and do an eccentric relief (not true ovality). For prototyping I wrote a computer programme that calculated the subtended angle of intersection of a major diameter and a minor diameter for a given offset for an offset turned pseudo ellipse. Then another programme to calculate the shim thickness to offset a given major diameter by a given amount in a 3 jaw chuck. For production we always intended to sub the job out to a dedicated piston manufacturer with CNC ovality capability. And what was the reasoning? Pin offset?....how much...what direction? 1.25 mm in the direction of the thrust side of the block. I'd heard that was the cool side and gave the pin an easier life. What surface finish requirements did you have.... Smoothish - but then with a bit of roughness too. It was kind of tricky to specify. how much oil volume was held? Less than a handful. But then it depended on what size hands you had I suppose. Since you said you reamed the pin bore, obviously you did not use a form bore (shaped bore), nor (intentionally) an oval bore, so what did you calculate in to prevent pinboss cracking due to pin flex under load? A big ****-off pin boss that went right up to the crown. It seemed to do the job. So please, no bloody stupid room 101 test questions about where the datum point for measuring the o/d on a piston skirt is because if you really want to get into engine theory with me I'll blow you out of the f***ing water. That I wouldn't be so sure about Dave.. Oh I think so. I'm sure you know a lot about pistons if you work in a plant that makes pistons. Could you design and make a billet crankshaft? That was the next project. After that came Carillo style conrods from forgings and billet EN24T. We rapidly decided it wasn't cost effective compared to the dedicated manufacturers who were fully CNC tooled up for the job. A set was made for a customer's race engine though and worked very nicely. They just took too long to make. After that came cam profile design and metallurgy and that ended up involving tappet metallurgy because the various combinations of chill cast iron, inductioned hardened iron and nitrided steel aren't all compatible with all the various tappet materials. I still do a few cams for applications that can't be bought off the shelf. My colleague still makes some semi finished blanks from EN40B bar for vintage Bentleys for another customer but that isn't part of my portfolio. Valve metallurgy and shape for best flow was comparatively simple compared to pistons and a fair proportion of my income now comes from valves I design myself. A project that actually generated income rather than just knowledge. They are listed on the website. Valve guides were similarly straightforward and I make those on the Student from two main types of bronze depending on application and combustion chamber temperatures. Not because it's cheaper than off the shelf ones but because I can keep concentricity to nearly nil by doing it myself which means they can be changed as required without having to recut the valve seats and it enables me to maintain optimum port shapes. The 4 butterfly DCOE style thottle bodies from billet aluminium took the longest to design and prototype. I actually made money from them until my colleague messed me about so much on the lead times I dropped them. Or we could talk about fluid mechanics and cylinder head porting. Or I could stop showing off and you could maybe admit that some people who build race engines at this level do a bit more than just throw together bits that other people manufacture without understanding how they work. -- Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk) |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robin S." wrote in message
... "Dave Baker" wrote in message ... I understand there's no particular reason you ought to know what I do or that I'm one of the leading specialists in engine design and theory in the UK "Never trust anyone who asks you to." So please, no bloody stupid room 101 test questions about where the datum point for measuring the o/d on a piston skirt is because if you really want to get into engine theory with me I'll blow you out of the f***ing water. Now you're getting nasty Dave. You're actually not the only person here who cuts metal professionally. This actually is very funny, and I'm biting my tongue...because I know who Anthony works for, and that he's very expert at the business of making high-end pistons in production, and I know who Dave is, and that he's a genuine expert at making his kind of pistons. Well, to be accurate, I know something about their companies, by reputation in Dave's case and by more than reputation in Anthony's case. I think it's likely that both of them are top-level piston-manufacturing experts, within their own frames of reference. But they're at opposite ends of the production telescope. And it really shows. g Ed Huntress |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Baker" wrote in message
... Oh, hey, before I forget it, here's something relating to pistons for hobbyists who like to fiddle around. When I was at Wasino and we were trying to sell Ford a $7 million transfer line for oval-turning pistons (using our then mostly-vaporware magnetostrictive oval-turning accessory), I had to make some illustrations for press releases and for a brochure. I had to show the barrel shape, and the different ovality at the top and the bottom of the piston, and the transitions. Anyway, I was using Rhino a lot then, so we got some formulas from Ford for a very complex piston and my boss turned them into a big Excel table of data, each degree around the piston: 360 columns. I added a column for a multiplier that I could use to multiply all of the offset values in the table. Then I started plugging in multipliers and feeding the tables of data into Rhino. By trial and error I found values that would make the piston visibly barrel-shaped and visibly oval. I used POV-Ray to render the models so I could play with the lights, and we got some great-looking examples of what piston shapes would look like to the naked eye, if the offsets are multiplied by some very large value. It was very tricky, because a little bit too much multiplication and you wound up with weird, distorted shapes that totally obscured the point. But there were values that showed what we wanted without turning the pistons into Klein bottles. No, I don't have any of the images anymore. But any Rhino jock could figure out how to do it. Ed Huntress |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: automotive engine boring on a mill
From: "Ed Huntress" Date: 10/12/04 05:53 GMT Standard Time Message-id: "Robin S." wrote in message m... "Dave Baker" wrote in message ... I understand there's no particular reason you ought to know what I do or that I'm one of the leading specialists in engine design and theory in the UK "Never trust anyone who asks you to." So please, no bloody stupid room 101 test questions about where the datum point for measuring the o/d on a piston skirt is because if you really want to get into engine theory with me I'll blow you out of the f***ing water. Now you're getting nasty Dave. You're actually not the only person here who cuts metal professionally. This actually is very funny, and I'm biting my tongue...because I know who Anthony works for, and that he's very expert at the business of making high-end pistons in production, and I know who Dave is, and that he's a genuine expert at making his kind of pistons. I don't make pistons for a living Ed. It was a one off project about 10 years ago. I design and build race engines and specialise in cylinder head flow development. It's just that over the years I've looked at most of the major components in an engine to see if myself and my colleague could make them competitively or not. Partly to make work for his CNC shop, partly so I could get exactly what I wanted without having to rely on other manufacturers, partly because the only way to really understand a component is to learn what making it entails. Even when we decided that something was just too specialised to continue making them in small numbers without the optimum machinery it was incredibly valuable in terms of R&D, metallurgical knowledge etc and to an extent just being able to say to myself, yes I can do this if I want to now. At least now when I need something specialised I can talk to the suppliers from the POV of actually understanding the product. Even something as simple as a valve guide means learning about the properties of an essentially infinite number of types of bronze, the ideal interference fit in the head, wear properties, coefficients of expansion etc. Get to something more involved like a piston or a camshaft profile and that complexity expands many times over. State of the art in piston design is a million miles away from what we ever achieved but at least I had the satisfaction of running an engine where I could say I actually made the pistons from scratch. They were somewhat agricultural at that stage but they worked, they didn't break and they taught me where the finer points of the design process lay. -- Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk) |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: .. This actually is very funny, and I'm biting my tongue...because I know who Anthony works for, and that he's very expert at the business of making high-end pistons in production, and I know who Dave is, and that he's a genuine expert at making his kind of pistons. Well, to be accurate, I know something about their companies, by reputation in Dave's case and by more than reputation in Anthony's case. I think it's likely that both of them are top-level piston-manufacturing experts, within their own frames of reference. But they're at opposite ends of the production telescope. And it really shows. g Ed Huntress Hehe... I've been finding this thread quite entertaining myself Ed. Kind of a comic relief from all the daily stress. Yes, I am quite sure we are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Anthony" wrote in message ... I find this very suprising from an engine builder of the reputation such as yours. He's got quite the bark, but I don't see the bite... Regards, Robin |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anthony wrote:
oEmails (Dave Baker) wrote in : No. just a bit ticked off about comments such as "it is obvious you may not even understand what entails a quality bore" I stand by my statement. Your statement "Blueprinting an engine is bull****" stands behind me on that. There is no way your hand dial bore comparator can tell you squat about your bore, except the relative diameter of the plane you measured (which may not even be square to the bore.) It tells you nothing about cylindricity, straightness, surface profile, perpendictularity to the crank and deck, offset from crank centerline or any of the mirad of other dimensions that are critical to wear, combustion sealing and power. That may have been fine 30 years ago....but it does not fly today, in either volume manufacturing....or especially, in the race world. People pay a high premium for a high performance engine. They expect quality above and beyond a production engine. From your own statements, it is apparent that your quality doesn't even approach that of a modern production engine, let alone the quality of today's true high-performance engines. And yes, I do know what kind of quality today's race engine builders are using. I find this very suprising from an engine builder of the reputation such as yours. -- Anthony One can wander off to www.pumaracing.co.uk and see what Dave's accomplished, where can one go to view your credentials and accomplishments, that you base your opinions on? Tom |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom wrote in :
One can wander off to www.pumaracing.co.uk and see what Dave's accomplished, where can one go to view your credentials and accomplishments, that you base your opinions on? Tom Tom, Check your email. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anthony wrote:
Tom wrote in : One can wander off to www.pumaracing.co.uk and see what Dave's accomplished, where can one go to view your credentials and accomplishments, that you base your opinions on? Tom Tom, Check your email. -- Anthony Done that. Had absolutely no verifiable content.. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Anthony wrote: Well, since we were aiming for tolerances on the diameter in tenths but only had measuring equipment that read to tenths I'm sure you'll tell me we couldn't possibly determine our tolerances without measuring equipment that read, and of course was regularly certified, to read to hundedths. I will agree on that point. Please. Having access to better measuring equipment is nice, but that's because it allows one to be *more sloppy* when meeting a given specification, not because it's absolutely required by the laws of physics. If one has to maintain a tolerance of .001", then it can be done by either: 1. using measuring equipment that is only reliable to .0004", and making sure that the measurement is within .0006"; or 2. using measuring equipment that is reliable to .0001", and making sure that the measurement is within .0009". In either case the numbers add to .001". But what a production engineer sees is that if he makes choice #1, he may be saving a few hundred dollars, in getting a cheaper measuring tool, but he may have to rework the entire production machinery (perhaps costing millions of dollars) so as to get the measured errors into a narrower range, without actually improving the delivered accuracy. This is generally a no-brainer: spend the extra money, and get the better measuring tool. Why stop at a factor of ten? Well, for one thing, it's a nice round number: easy to remember, and easy to use. One can, for instance, add up the possible errors of the chain of calibration quite easily: 10% + 1% + .1% + ... = 11.111...%. Also, beyond that point the returns diminish very rapidly: if a factor of 20 were used, instead of 10, then the required accuracy of the measuring instrument in the above example would be doubled, but the allowable production tolerances would just move from .0009 to .00095 -- only a 6% improvement. So the standard factor of ten makes sense: it's about what most people would choose anyway (if they are among the class of people who pay attention to industrial standards); and standardizing puts everybody on the same wavelength. On the other hand, for an individual doing a one-off project, improving measured tolerances by being more careful might cost a few hours; and the income from a few hours of work might easily be less than the cost of the more accurate instrument. -- Norman Yarvin http://yarchive.net |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom" wrote in message ... Anthony wrote: Tom wrote in : One can wander off to www.pumaracing.co.uk and see what Dave's accomplished, where can one go to view your credentials and accomplishments, that you base your opinions on? Tom Tom, Check your email. Done that. Had absolutely no verifiable content.. Tom, I probly still have a handful of RFQs from them I got about 2 years ago, effector and robotics bits and pieces for a line changeout--ended up our shop got buried in work and we werent able to promise the required lead times and so never did any work for them Whether to believe it or not I guess is your option........ -- SVL |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message ... Anthony wrote: Tom wrote in : One can wander off to www.pumaracing.co.uk and see what Dave's accomplished, where can one go to view your credentials and accomplishments, that you base your opinions on? Tom Tom, Check your email. Done that. Had absolutely no verifiable content.. Tom, I probly still have a handful of RFQs from them I got about 2 years ago, effector and robotics bits and pieces for a line changeout--ended up our shop got buried in work and we werent able to promise the required lead times and so never did any work for them Whether to believe it or not I guess is your option........ -- SVL Them? |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom" wrote in message ... PrecisionMachinisT wrote: "Tom" wrote in message ... Anthony wrote: Tom wrote in : One can wander off to www.pumaracing.co.uk and see what Dave's accomplished, where can one go to view your credentials and accomplishments, that you base your opinions on? Tom Tom, Check your email. Done that. Had absolutely no verifiable content.. Tom, I probly still have a handful of RFQs from them I got about 2 years ago, effector and robotics bits and pieces for a line changeout--ended up our shop got buried in work and we werent able to promise the required lead times and so never did any work for them Whether to believe it or not I guess is your option........ -- SVL Them? Yes..... "Them" being one division of a very large multinational corporation that is involved in the manufacturing of precision engine components, gages and metrology, machine tools, etc.....this from the letterhead on the faxes that I recieved of Anthony about two years ago........ Now as to *exactly* which company that is, I wont divulge that info as I would be breaching his trust, since I know he wishes that info to not be in the public knowledge. Now I'm hoping I'm done here, but if you feel he's bull****ting, bluffing or even downright lying, then don't ****ing beat around the bush--suggest instead you just go ahead and make that call......I've no doubt at least a dozen others who also know him fairly well will come along and attest he is about as straight up a guy as the world has ever known. -- SVL |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message ... PrecisionMachinisT wrote: "Tom" wrote in message ... Anthony wrote: Tom wrote in : One can wander off to www.pumaracing.co.uk and see what Dave's accomplished, where can one go to view your credentials and accomplishments, that you base your opinions on? Tom Tom, Check your email. Done that. Had absolutely no verifiable content.. Tom, I probly still have a handful of RFQs from them I got about 2 years ago, effector and robotics bits and pieces for a line changeout--ended up our shop got buried in work and we werent able to promise the required lead times and so never did any work for them Whether to believe it or not I guess is your option........ -- SVL Them? Yes..... "Them" being one division of a very large multinational corporation that is involved in the manufacturing of precision engine components, gages and metrology, machine tools, etc.....this from the letterhead on the faxes that I recieved of Anthony about two years ago........ Now as to *exactly* which company that is, I wont divulge that info as I would be breaching his trust, since I know he wishes that info to not be in the public knowledge. Now I'm hoping I'm done here, but if you feel he's bull****ting, bluffing or even downright lying, then don't ****ing beat around the bush--suggest instead you just go ahead and make that call......I've no doubt at least a dozen others who also know him fairly well will come along and attest he is about as straight up a guy as the world has ever known. -- SVL Well you can suggest all you want, as I wouldn't know you from a hole in the ground, and as such, your opinion counts for about the same. Tom |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom" wrote in message ... PrecisionMachinisT wrote: "Tom" wrote in message ... PrecisionMachinisT wrote: "Tom" wrote in message ... Anthony wrote: Tom wrote in : One can wander off to www.pumaracing.co.uk and see what Dave's accomplished, where can one go to view your credentials and accomplishments, that you base your opinions on? Tom Tom, Check your email. Done that. Had absolutely no verifiable content.. Tom, I probly still have a handful of RFQs from them I got about 2 years ago, effector and robotics bits and pieces for a line changeout--ended up our shop got buried in work and we werent able to promise the required lead times and so never did any work for them Whether to believe it or not I guess is your option........ Them? Yes..... "Them" being one division of a very large multinational corporation that is involved in the manufacturing of precision engine components, gages and metrology, machine tools, etc.....this from the letterhead on the faxes that I recieved of Anthony about two years ago........ Now as to *exactly* which company that is, I wont divulge that info as I would be breaching his trust, since I know he wishes that info to not be in the public knowledge. Now I'm hoping I'm done here, but if you feel he's bull****ting, bluffing or even downright lying, then don't ****ing beat around the bush--suggest instead you just go ahead and make that call......I've no doubt at least a dozen others who also know him fairly well will come along and attest he is about as straight up a guy as the world has ever known. Well you can suggest all you want, as I wouldn't know you from a hole in the ground, and as such, your opinion counts for about the same. As does yours...... But go ahead and discount my opinion, it's really no skin offa my balls--but just for fun lets shoot for the dozen. -- SVL |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:25:38 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote: Well you can suggest all you want, as I wouldn't know you from a hole in the ground, and as such, your opinion counts for about the same. As does yours...... But go ahead and discount my opinion, it's really no skin offa my balls--but just for fun lets shoot for the dozen. Sounds like another gasbag, Precision. Was he looking for work or just BSing? Who would pay a hobbiest anyway? -- Cliff |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:25:38 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote: Well you can suggest all you want, as I wouldn't know you from a hole in the ground, and as such, your opinion counts for about the same. As does yours...... But go ahead and discount my opinion, it's really no skin offa my balls--but just for fun lets shoot for the dozen. Sounds like another gasbag, Precision. Was he looking for work or just BSing? Who would pay a hobbiest anyway? Cliff, This "Tom" fellow seems to be saying Anthony is full of **** when it comes to automotive manufacturing particularily when it comes to pistons, rings, cylinder bores, gaging and the like. -- SVL |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
... "Tom" wrote in message ... Anthony wrote: Tom wrote in : One can wander off to www.pumaracing.co.uk and see what Dave's accomplished, where can one go to view your credentials and accomplishments, that you base your opinions on? Tom Tom, Check your email. Done that. Had absolutely no verifiable content.. Tom, I probly still have a handful of RFQs from them I got about 2 years ago, effector and robotics bits and pieces for a line changeout--ended up our shop got buried in work and we werent able to promise the required lead times and so never did any work for them Whether to believe it or not I guess is your option........ -- SVL I hope I'm not betraying a trust, but I know from correspondence regarding an article I wrote a couple of years ago that Anthony works for one of the world's premier piston-makers, probably the most sophisticated engineering and manufacturing operations for pistons anywhere. However, I'm not qualified to judge the degree of his knowledge, although I believe it's considerable. Ed Huntress |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:10:22 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:25:38 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote: Well you can suggest all you want, as I wouldn't know you from a hole in the ground, and as such, your opinion counts for about the same. As does yours...... But go ahead and discount my opinion, it's really no skin offa my balls--but just for fun lets shoot for the dozen. Sounds like another gasbag, Precision. Was he looking for work or just BSing? Who would pay a hobbiest anyway? Cliff, This "Tom" fellow seems to be saying Anthony is full of **** when it comes to automotive manufacturing particularily when it comes to pistons, rings, cylinder bores, gaging and the like. And Tom would know this how? Has a lawnmower? -- Cliff |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
I really don't understand why these threads go the way they do. What happens
is that three or four people take differing opinions and start heaping personal insults on each other. The result is that the newgroups ends up losing these people because eventually they become tired of defending themselves. In this case I believe that all that are involved are very knowledgeable and in the long run have so very much to offer to people like me. Why not agree to disagree and let it go? Your personal honor surley can not be put into question by comments on an internet newsgroup. I really don't care if people slam each other to hell over gun issues and politics but pistons and engines are what this news group is all about. Please cut each other some slack and realize this isn't like face to face confrontation in the business world. This is the fuzzy world of the internet and you do not need to be personaly offended by someone you will never meet or debate in the real world. Just keep involved and answer the questions of people who need help everynow and then, like me!!!! Rick |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: I hope I'm not betraying a trust, but I know from correspondence regarding an article I wrote a couple of years ago that Anthony works for one of the world's premier piston-makers, probably the most sophisticated engineering and manufacturing operations for pistons anywhere. However, I'm not qualified to judge the degree of his knowledge, although I believe it's considerable. Ed Huntress Ed, pistons are only the start , product lines include blocks, valves,camshafts and valvetrain components, intake manifolds, connecting rods, bearings, rings, cylinders, cylinder liners, filters, and a variety of other engine components. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Anthony" wrote in message
... "Ed Huntress" wrote in : I hope I'm not betraying a trust, but I know from correspondence regarding an article I wrote a couple of years ago that Anthony works for one of the world's premier piston-makers, probably the most sophisticated engineering and manufacturing operations for pistons anywhere. However, I'm not qualified to judge the degree of his knowledge, although I believe it's considerable. Ed Huntress Ed, pistons are only the start , product lines include blocks, valves,camshafts and valvetrain components, intake manifolds, connecting rods, bearings, rings, cylinders, cylinder liners, filters, and a variety of other engine components. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email Yeah, I know. But the subject was pistons. 8:-) (sorry for the odd emoticon; 'glasses are pushed up on my head today.) Ed Huntress |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why not stop beating around the bush and just tell the group what you do and
where you do it so we may all be enlightened by the source and recipient of your expertise? Robert "Anthony" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in : I hope I'm not betraying a trust, but I know from correspondence regarding an article I wrote a couple of years ago that Anthony works for one of the world's premier piston-makers, probably the most sophisticated engineering and manufacturing operations for pistons anywhere. However, I'm not qualified to judge the degree of his knowledge, although I believe it's considerable. Ed Huntress Ed, pistons are only the start , product lines include blocks, valves,camshafts and valvetrain components, intake manifolds, connecting rods, bearings, rings, cylinders, cylinder liners, filters, and a variety of other engine components. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Siggy" wrote in message . com... Why not stop beating around the bush and just tell the group what you do and where you do it so we may all be enlightened by the source and recipient of your expertise? Robert The idea here is that anyone who has a clue already knows Anthony knows what's going on. Regards, Robin |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
At this point there is no doubt that Anthony knows his stuff. However, for
the last several pieces of this thread there has been all of this coy talk about his work for the premier piston builder/cam grinder/block manufacturer/manifold maker, blah blah blah... Others are talking about knowing of him, his work and his company, etc. I'm not trying to take anything away from the guy, I'm simply suggesting that if he is so darned proud of the company and its products, why not mention the name so those of us who don't know him, his reputation or his company can be enlightened? Robert "Robin S." wrote in message .. . "Siggy" wrote in message . com... Why not stop beating around the bush and just tell the group what you do and where you do it so we may all be enlightened by the source and recipient of your expertise? Robert The idea here is that anyone who has a clue already knows Anthony knows what's going on. Regards, Robin |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Siggy" wrote in message
om... At this point there is no doubt that Anthony knows his stuff. However, for the last several pieces of this thread there has been all of this coy talk about his work for the premier piston builder/cam grinder/block manufacturer/manifold maker, blah blah blah... Others are talking about knowing of him, his work and his company, etc. I'm not trying to take anything away from the guy, I'm simply suggesting that if he is so darned proud of the company and its products, why not mention the name so those of us who don't know him, his reputation or his company can be enlightened? Robert I don't disagree with you, Robert, but some people here -- including people I've met here and quoted in published articles, whose names you wouldn't connect with the names they use here -- just can't, or don't want to, have their presence here connected with their company or their work. Like you, I find it frustrating sometimes. But I recognize that some people have that need. That's the way it goes. BTW, my name really *is* Ed Huntress. g Ed Huntress |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Siggy" wrote in
om: At this point there is no doubt that Anthony knows his stuff. However, for the last several pieces of this thread there has been all of this coy talk about his work for the premier piston builder/cam grinder/block manufacturer/manifold maker, blah blah blah... Others are talking about knowing of him, his work and his company, etc. I'm not trying to take anything away from the guy, I'm simply suggesting that if he is so darned proud of the company and its products, why not mention the name so those of us who don't know him, his reputation or his company can be enlightened? Robert Siggy, The fact of the matter is that most of what/how we do things is highly proprietary. When you hold a technological advantage over your competition, you have to maintain that, especially in the vehicle business. Company policy states that any release of that information, no matter how inadvertent, is cause for immediate termination. I have seen them excercise this policy more than once. Since I have a family to support, I feel it in my best interest, and that of my family, to keep my employer out of the newsgroups, since what I may consider proprietary information, and what they might consider proprietary information may not be the same. It just isn't worth the risk. I try, within the confines of that, provide what assistance I can to the folks on the newsgroup, but I will not put my family and my career at risk over a thread in a newsgroup. Those that do know me understand this situation, and I am thankful that they have upheld my request to not mention the company. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Great response, Anthony. I appreciate your taking the time to explain your
position / reasoning - it makes all of the sense in the world. Robert "Anthony" wrote in message ... "Siggy" wrote in om: At this point there is no doubt that Anthony knows his stuff. However, for the last several pieces of this thread there has been all of this coy talk about his work for the premier piston builder/cam grinder/block manufacturer/manifold maker, blah blah blah... Others are talking about knowing of him, his work and his company, etc. I'm not trying to take anything away from the guy, I'm simply suggesting that if he is so darned proud of the company and its products, why not mention the name so those of us who don't know him, his reputation or his company can be enlightened? Robert Siggy, The fact of the matter is that most of what/how we do things is highly proprietary. When you hold a technological advantage over your competition, you have to maintain that, especially in the vehicle business. Company policy states that any release of that information, no matter how inadvertent, is cause for immediate termination. I have seen them excercise this policy more than once. Since I have a family to support, I feel it in my best interest, and that of my family, to keep my employer out of the newsgroups, since what I may consider proprietary information, and what they might consider proprietary information may not be the same. It just isn't worth the risk. I try, within the confines of that, provide what assistance I can to the folks on the newsgroup, but I will not put my family and my career at risk over a thread in a newsgroup. Those that do know me understand this situation, and I am thankful that they have upheld my request to not mention the company. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| (mis)adventures moving a Nichols mill | Metalworking | |||
| Replacement engine for Colemate Generator | Metalworking | |||
| Boring, Lathe or Mill? | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
