| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Source for small precision shafting
Hi,
I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James |
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:08:49 -0600, James wrote:
Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James That's going to be a special and pricey. In 416, it'd probably have to be ground. You could try W.M. Berg (www.wmberg.com) or Stock Drive Products (www.stockdriveproducts.com). They can quote specials and do small ground shafts. Good luck. Pete Keillor |
In article ,
says... In article KFuSd.13285$ds.6525@okepread07, says... Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? One more. If 2" is long enough, pin gages are available in .01mm and ..0025mm increments. Ned Simmons |
"James" wrote in message news:KFuSd.13285$ds.6525@okepread07... Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. You do not have 3mm drill rod. You have 1/8" drill rod. If you buy some 3mm drill rod, it should be within .02mm or better. Drill blanks are even better, but are not really machinable (can be done with ceramic, cermet, CBN) so you either have to grind them, or be happy with what you have. Also, they are a shatter hazard because of their great hardness. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Why do you need stainless? You need to decide, I think, because it will almost certainly be more expensive than tool steel (drill rod) or drill blanks. Regards, Robin |
When I try to turn it the resulting surface is terrible.
I'm using slow speed, carbide cutter and plenty of lube. ?? Ignoramus15794 wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:08:49 -0600, James wrote: Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. Do you have a lathe? If so, you can turn the rod section by section, in a lathe, pulling it out of the chuck as necessary, to avoid flexing. i |
Just need something hard and non-corroding.
I'm using a shaft out of a computer part now. It's not as hard as the drill rod but doesn't corrode at all. The drill rod already has surface rust on it after a week of service. I'm assuming that since the drill rod isn't perfectly round that it's not ground. I need perfectly round because it will be spinning in bearings up to 50K RPMs also it's a press fit into a stamped steel part so has to be pretty close on the specs. Thanks James Robin S. wrote: "James" wrote in message news:KFuSd.13285$ds.6525@okepread07... Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. You do not have 3mm drill rod. You have 1/8" drill rod. If you buy some 3mm drill rod, it should be within .02mm or better. Drill blanks are even better, but are not really machinable (can be done with ceramic, cermet, CBN) so you either have to grind them, or be happy with what you have. Also, they are a shatter hazard because of their great hardness. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Why do you need stainless? You need to decide, I think, because it will almost certainly be more expensive than tool steel (drill rod) or drill blanks. Regards, Robin |
"James" wrote in message news:4CxSd.13647$ds.703@okepread07... Just need something hard and non-corroding. I'm using a shaft out of a computer part now. It's not as hard as the drill rod but doesn't corrode at all. The drill rod already has surface rust on it after a week of service. I'm assuming that since the drill rod isn't perfectly round that it's not ground. I need perfectly round because it will be spinning in bearings up to 50K RPMs also it's a press fit into a stamped steel part so has to be pretty close on the specs. Sounds like you do need to find some stainless which is (or can be) ground. Centerless grinding does not result in a *perfectly* round shaft, although it's certainly more convienent than cylindrical grinding. I don't have any concrete sources for you.. Perhaps somewhere like Mcmaster-Carr (www.mcmaster.com), MSC (www.mscdirect.com) or Thomson Industries might have something (www.thomsonindustries.com). Regards, Robin |
"Robin S." wrote in message . .. "James" wrote in message news:4CxSd.13647$ds.703@okepread07... Just need something hard and non-corroding. I'm using a shaft out of a computer part now. It's not as hard as the drill rod but doesn't corrode at all. The drill rod already has surface rust on it after a week of service. I'm assuming that since the drill rod isn't perfectly round that it's not ground. I need perfectly round because it will be spinning in bearings up to 50K RPMs also it's a press fit into a stamped steel part so has to be pretty close on the specs. Sounds like you do need to find some stainless which is (or can be) ground. Centerless grinding does not result in a *perfectly* round shaft, although it's certainly more convienent than cylindrical grinding. Sorry, Robin. You have been misinformed. A properly set up centerless will yield what is, for all practical purposes, dead round parts. Only when they are run *on center* do they not. In fact, they are capable of very close work, with outstanding repeatability. Harold |
"James" wrote in message news:KFuSd.13285$ds.6525@okepread07... Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James Try PIC Design. http://www.pic-design.com/picsmartcat/TOCPic.htm Harold |
What type of hardening should I get?
Air, Oil or Water? Criteria a Easy to machine, corrosion resistance and stiffness. Thanks James wrote: Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James |
"James" wrote in message news:AfzSd.13656$ds.13507@okepread07... What type of hardening should I get? Air, Oil or Water? Criteria a Easy to machine, corrosion resistance and stiffness. Thanks James wrote: Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James We really need to talk about the corrosion resistance you mention. If it's not chemically induced, I'm having the least bit of trouble understanding why it's a problem. None of your choices will offer corrosion resistance, although 416 SS would, especially in the heat treated condition. PIC has lots of sizes in 303 SS, which is a dream to machine, but, not heat treatable. It might be wise to mention exactly what you're doing (and perhaps even why) so we don't have to make assumptions. You may be chasing your tail unnecessarily. Do you have to heat treat? Are the parts in need of precision after heat treat? Have you ruled out making the parts with grinding in mind? All of these will determine the best choice of material. Air hardening is likely the overall best choice if you can live with little corrosion resistance. Harold |
Harold,
I'm trying to find a shaft material to use in small electric motors that I'm going to kit and sell. These motors are rebuildable and the reason for the corrosion resistance is that they will be used outside and exposed to the air, dirt and everything else you can find in a typical field or park. This shaft will ride in ball bearings and be fitted into a pressed steel end piece which is why the diameter is critical. The pressed steel end is pre-manufactured and I have no control over the size. A shaft I have that measures 3.08mm fits perfect. I could probably go a little larger if I were using a press to install the shaft into the pressed metal but I am trying to sell this in kit form so the end user will need to be able to press fit the shaft. The 3.08mm shaft is doable using a drill press to press it in. The motors are designed to spin upwards of 50K RPM I have some 303 SS in 2mm but it seemed very soft to me and I'm not sure it would stand up to the abuse. I am doing this out of my house. I don't have heat treating abilities and very limited machining abilities. Small lathe, drill press and bench grinder are about it. So far I've used up 3' of A-1 in the 3.18mm size making the kits but trying to get 3.18 down to 3.08 has been a challenge. I can not seem to get it to cut very well on the lathe and end up using emory cloth to get the final dimensions. Very time consuming. I have ordered some #31 oversize drill rod (0.120 +0.0002) from McMaster Should have explained all that in the first post. Thanks James Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: "James" wrote in message news:AfzSd.13656$ds.13507@okepread07... What type of hardening should I get? Air, Oil or Water? Criteria a Easy to machine, corrosion resistance and stiffness. Thanks James wrote: Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James We really need to talk about the corrosion resistance you mention. If it's not chemically induced, I'm having the least bit of trouble understanding why it's a problem. None of your choices will offer corrosion resistance, although 416 SS would, especially in the heat treated condition. PIC has lots of sizes in 303 SS, which is a dream to machine, but, not heat treatable. It might be wise to mention exactly what you're doing (and perhaps even why) so we don't have to make assumptions. You may be chasing your tail unnecessarily. Do you have to heat treat? Are the parts in need of precision after heat treat? Have you ruled out making the parts with grinding in mind? All of these will determine the best choice of material. Air hardening is likely the overall best choice if you can live with little corrosion resistance. Harold |
"James" wrote in message news:LdASd.13659$ds.4084@okepread07... Harold, I'm trying to find a shaft material to use in small electric motors that I'm going to kit and sell. These motors are rebuildable and the reason for the corrosion resistance is that they will be used outside and exposed to the air, dirt and everything else you can find in a typical field or park. To what extent would they be rebuildable? Rewinding? Seems like a tall order for high speed motors. I'd think that balancing them would be a top priority. This shaft will ride in ball bearings and be fitted into a pressed steel end piece which is why the diameter is critical. The pressed steel end is pre-manufactured and I have no control over the size. Unless I'm missing something, the bearings would dictate the size needed, not the end, although they may be similar in size, if not identical. Bearings that are not a decent fit will often cease to function at high speeds, with the shaft slipping in the inner race. That's not a good thing. How does the shaft size you desire relate to the bearings? Good fit? Too loose? A shaft I have that measures 3.08mm fits perfect. I could probably go a little larger if I were using a press to install the shaft into the pressed metal but I am trying to sell this in kit form so the end user will need to be able to press fit the shaft. The 3.08mm shaft is doable using a drill press to press it in. The motors are designed to spin upwards of 50K RPM I have some 303 SS in 2mm but it seemed very soft to me and I'm not sure it would stand up to the abuse. Yes, it does feel soft, but it has respectable tensile strength, especially if you buy it in condition B, which is a work hardened state. Still, the diameter you seek could be an ongoing problem for you unless you can find someone with a centerless grinder to size the material. Shafts are typically soft, not heat treated, so you'd be right in the pack where shafts are concerned. You'd have the option of using either 303 or 416, both of which would serve well for corrosion resistance under the circumstances you described. Your chances of hitting the desired size is much better if you have the parts cut to length and they start out reasonably straight (less than a couple though bowed). A centerless is very capable of straightening stock, but it must be straighter than the amount that must be removed, and it must be handled accordingly, which means several light passes through the centerless, each one getting closer and closer to a straight piece. Assuming your part is slightly bowed, the grinding starts to occur on one side of each end, and again @ 180°, in the center. Each pass brings the part closer to straight, and it's very visible. Horsing the pass forces the part, so it doesn't get straightened as well and will end up not round or straight, which is the typical condition of drill rod, to varying degrees. That's likely why Robin said what he did. Not true when properly applied. I am doing this out of my house. I don't have heat treating abilities and very limited machining abilities. Small lathe, drill press and bench grinder are about it. I'm of the opinion that you may be over your head in that sizing the material won't happen easily without a centerless, whether it's yours or one you hire. You're likely already doing as much as you can expect otherwise. So far I've used up 3' of A-1 in the 3.18mm size making the kits but trying to get 3.18 down to 3.08 has been a challenge. I can not seem to get it to cut very well on the lathe and end up using emory cloth to get the final dimensions. Very time consuming. Yes, it is, but that's likely your only option unless you can buy a material that suits your needs and doesn't have to be worked for diameter. Polishing for final size isn't cheating, that's how guys like us achieve close tolerance when needed, and we don't own a grinder of some kind. Turning to a given diameter with a tight tolerance, especially on a small lathe, is nearly impossible, especially if you want a good finish. Most material simply won't cooperate. It has little to do with you and your equipment. I have ordered some #31 oversize drill rod (0.120 +0.0002) from McMaster That won't solve the corrosion problem, and may not solve the size problem, either. 3.08 is a full thou larger than that size, and is way too far undersized to make a decent bearing fit, assuming you really do want the 3.08 finished diameter. Again, unless I've missed something, that's not going to solve your problem. Should have explained all that in the first post. Yeah, the more information you can provide, the better the chance you'll get an answer that suits your needs. The slightest thing can make otherwise very good suggestions not so great for a given situation. I'm of the opinion this is one of them. You have some serious considerations with this project, one of which is balance. At the velocities you mention, I can't help but wonder if the end product won't vibrate considerably. If your shafts aren't very straight, they're likely too. Maybe not a problem for the application, hard for me to say. Without knowing more, what I think I'd do is get a prototype worked out, and if you have need for a volume of shafts, buy material that's near size, say 1/8", cut them to length, chamfer the ends, then have them centerless ground. It's also possible that you can order the shafts to that particular spec and get them without any handling on your behalf. Centerless grinders are work horses that have the capacity to turn out thousands of finished parts per hour. Setup takes time, grinding (normally) does not. You might find that you could get a shaft sized for a few cents, especially if they don't have to be run through the grinder too many times. By starting with straight material that's near size, you'd eliminate the need to do so. It's possible that you could run them through the grinder no more than three times and have them sized perfectly, holding a tenth or less of tolerance. You could probably do it with one pass, but you'd risk getting parts out of round. You're at the mercy of the skill and caring of the operator. Thanks James Not sure I've been much help, James, but know that turning something like you're trying to turn isn't easy, not even for guys with years of experience. That's why grinders were made. You can do it that way, but it will be labor intensive. Be certain to check with PIC before making any long term decisions. I used to buy from them when I was building tools for guidance systems. They're a top notch outfit with excellent service, or they used to be, anyway. Haven't done business with them for years. Harold |
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:28:35 -0600, James wrote:
McMaster Carr also sells 1 inch long 1/8 inch diameter hardened 416 dowell pins. These pins would be cheap to have centerless ground to your desired size. The pins are about 25 cents each. I'm sure you could have them ground, in quantities, for much less. Harold, I'm trying to find a shaft material to use in small electric motors that I'm going to kit and sell. These motors are rebuildable and the reason for the corrosion resistance is that they will be used outside and exposed to the air, dirt and everything else you can find in a typical field or park. This shaft will ride in ball bearings and be fitted into a pressed steel end piece which is why the diameter is critical. The pressed steel end is pre-manufactured and I have no control over the size. A shaft I have that measures 3.08mm fits perfect. I could probably go a little larger if I were using a press to install the shaft into the pressed metal but I am trying to sell this in kit form so the end user will need to be able to press fit the shaft. The 3.08mm shaft is doable using a drill press to press it in. The motors are designed to spin upwards of 50K RPM I have some 303 SS in 2mm but it seemed very soft to me and I'm not sure it would stand up to the abuse. I am doing this out of my house. I don't have heat treating abilities and very limited machining abilities. Small lathe, drill press and bench grinder are about it. So far I've used up 3' of A-1 in the 3.18mm size making the kits but trying to get 3.18 down to 3.08 has been a challenge. I can not seem to get it to cut very well on the lathe and end up using emory cloth to get the final dimensions. Very time consuming. I have ordered some #31 oversize drill rod (0.120 +0.0002) from McMaster Should have explained all that in the first post. Thanks James Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: "James" wrote in message news:AfzSd.13656$ds.13507@okepread07... What type of hardening should I get? Air, Oil or Water? Criteria a Easy to machine, corrosion resistance and stiffness. Thanks James wrote: Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James We really need to talk about the corrosion resistance you mention. If it's not chemically induced, I'm having the least bit of trouble understanding why it's a problem. None of your choices will offer corrosion resistance, although 416 SS would, especially in the heat treated condition. PIC has lots of sizes in 303 SS, which is a dream to machine, but, not heat treatable. It might be wise to mention exactly what you're doing (and perhaps even why) so we don't have to make assumptions. You may be chasing your tail unnecessarily. Do you have to heat treat? Are the parts in need of precision after heat treat? Have you ruled out making the parts with grinding in mind? All of these will determine the best choice of material. Air hardening is likely the overall best choice if you can live with little corrosion resistance. Harold |
"James" wrote in message news:LdASd.13659$ds.4084@okepread07... I am doing this out of my house. I don't have heat treating abilities and very limited machining abilities. Small lathe, drill press and bench grinder are about it. James, Perhaps a tool post grinder would work on your small lathe. You didn't mention the length of the shaft. You could grind the .02mm off with the grinder and then cut the piece off. Slide out the next section and repeat operation. Regards, Bernd |
"Bernd" wrote in message ... "James" wrote in message news:LdASd.13659$ds.4084@okepread07... I am doing this out of my house. I don't have heat treating abilities and very limited machining abilities. Small lathe, drill press and bench grinder are about it. James, Perhaps a tool post grinder would work on your small lathe. You didn't mention the length of the shaft. You could grind the .02mm off with the grinder and then cut the piece off. Slide out the next section and repeat operation. Regards, Bernd Don't even think of going there. All you'll do is change the nature of your frustration. You'll solve nothing. Toolpost grinders are, at best, a PITA, slow, hard to manage, and very destructive to your lathe, especially if you run coolant, which is very important for a grinding operation. The chance of you holding the size you desire using a tool post grinder aren't good, especially if you want to do it time and again. You'd spend more time fighting the grinder than you would turning and polishing. I'm speaking from the position of having run precision grinders *and* toolpost grinders. If they're long enough, the comments on the 416 dowel pins is the best possible scenario as I see it. That was a very good tip. You'd start out with pins that are already straight, heat treated, so reducing size would be a snap. Possibly only one pass through the centerless. Harold |
In article ,
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: "Bernd" wrote in message ... "James" wrote in message news:LdASd.13659$ds.4084@okepread07... I am doing this out of my house. I don't have heat treating abilities and very limited machining abilities. Small lathe, drill press and bench grinder are about it. James, Perhaps a tool post grinder would work on your small lathe. You didn't mention the length of the shaft. You could grind the .02mm off with the grinder and then cut the piece off. Slide out the next section and [ ... ] Don't even think of going there. All you'll do is change the nature of your frustration. You'll solve nothing. Toolpost grinders are, at best, a PITA, slow, hard to manage, and very destructive to your lathe, especially if you run coolant, which is very important for a grinding operation. The chance of you holding the size you desire using a tool post grinder aren't good, especially if you want to do it time and again. You'd spend more time fighting the grinder than you would turning and polishing. I'm speaking from the position of having run precision grinders *and* toolpost grinders. Note that the shaft needs to fit the bearings *and* the press fit of the disc. A common ID of small bearings (at least in the US) is 1/8" (0.125"), which converts to 3.175mm. I would suggest that your shafts *must* be sized to fit the bearings, and only the *end* needs to be reduced to the press-fit size for your steel plate. And at the speeds which you are talking about, I would suggest that a really serious press fit is needed, not something easy to accomplish just using a drill press as the press. After all, if this steel plate comes loose at 50k RPM, it could do a lot of damage. What is the approximate size of this steel plate? This would help get a feel as to how likely it is to come loose. (Presuming that the shaft and the plate are what is rotating, and not the outer bearings and whatever they are mounted in instead.) While a toolpost grinder is a pain, and hard on the lathe itself, perhaps it might be reasonable for turning down only the end of the shaft to accept the press fit. You have only a small lathe, and one may presume one of the inexpensive ones, at that, so perhaps a second lathe of the same sort, dedicated to the toolpost grinding. And for the grinder, you could probably take a flexible-shaft Dremel tool and set it up on the toolpost for the grinding which you need to accomplish. Also -- how are you holding the shaft in your lathe? For those speeds, you will want your press fit ring to be truly concentric with the part which fits in the bearings, which excludes most 3-jaw chucks, and makes a 4-jaw chuck a real pain if you have a lot of these to true up and grind. Ideally, you would want a collet to hold the workpiece. I presume that in your attempts to turn the whole shaft to your desired diameter, you have a lot of it extending from the chuck. Note that this allows flex of the workpiece to make your surface finish a lot worse. You want to have as little extending beyond the workholder (chuck or collet) as possible. There are also other things which can be tuned up in the lathe to improve the surface finish, even while turning, not toolpost grinding. Perhaps some details as to *which* lathe would allow those familiar with that one to point out what is needed to make it have less flex in the critical areas. (Things like snuging up the gibs, and taking it apart to remove burrs from the dovetails so the fit of the gibs is better. Good Luck, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... Sorry, Robin. You have been misinformed. A properly set up centerless will yield what is, for all practical purposes, dead round parts. Only when they are run *on center* do they not. In fact, they are capable of very close work, with outstanding repeatability. No numbers? You should discuss with Cliff... Regards, Robin |
Whipped up a little web page with pictures and measurements.
http://www.jamesholbrook.com/edf_motor_mount.htm James James wrote: Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James |
"Ignoramus15841" wrote in message
... Great page James. Keep us posted. I would never think of fans running at 43,500 RPM! A 40mm diameter (20mm radius) fan, spinning at 43.5 rpm has a linear speed at perimeter of 43,500 * 0.02, or 870 meters per second, or approximately Mach 2.5 speed. I wonder what kind of effects would a supersonically rotating fan have on air. It is not obvious to me. Supersonic bodies generate shock waves, and I also wonder what effect would those shock waves have on parts near them. Please let us know how it works in the end and what is the sound level near that fan. i Uh, i, I know you're the algebra guy, but you should check those numbers. 43,500 rpm is 725 revolutions/second. The peripheral travel of a 40mm fan (pi*diameter) is 125.66 mm/revolution. Travel*revolutions/second is 91.1 meters/second. (Roughly 200 mph.) -- Ed Huntress |
"Ignoramus15841" wrote in message
... Scratch that, rpm is per minute. :) i I should have realized you'd catch that in a hurry, and saved myself the trouble. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
"Robin S." wrote in message . .. "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... Sorry, Robin. You have been misinformed. A properly set up centerless will yield what is, for all practical purposes, dead round parts. Only when they are run *on center* do they not. In fact, they are capable of very close work, with outstanding repeatability. No numbers? You should discuss with Cliff... Regards, Robin Sorry, he's much more your speed than mine. H |
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:33:27 -0500, "Robin S."
wrote: "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... Sorry, Robin. You have been misinformed. A properly set up centerless will yield what is, for all practical purposes, dead round parts. Only when they are run *on center* do they not. In fact, they are capable of very close work, with outstanding repeatability. No numbers? You should discuss with Cliff... Regards, Robin So Harold didn't post numbers. That's no reason to insult him. However, because you seem to know it all, (almost), here are some numbers so your knowledge will be complete. How about round to less than .00005, to size within .0001, on parts about 1.375 O.D., 1.500 long, with a 1.125 I.D.? Dimensioned in inches. Parts were nitrided to about 65 Rc. These were done in quantities, cheaply. These parts were first ground by someone who didn't know how to set up the grinder and were out of round (triangular) almost .0015. Since the tolerance was ..0002 total all the parts were scrap. The next shop did 'em right. Maybe the person who told you that centerless grinders couldn't make round parts was the same one who ground and scrapped the first run of the above parts. ERS |
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message ... snip---- While a toolpost grinder is a pain, and hard on the lathe itself, perhaps it might be reasonable for turning down only the end of the shaft to accept the press fit. Not if the material of choice is stainless, it wouldn't be reasonable. Stainless is difficult to grind under flood coolant conditions--and virtually impossible under dry conditions. The moment it starts to heat it expands into the wheel and snowballs. Been there, done that. I'm of the opinion he'd have lots better luck simply turning the end, starting with shaft size that fits the bearings properly. That's how I'd have approached the job at the outset. We're being spoon fed bits of information such that every time a comment is made, more information is disclosed, changing the concept, making helping almost impossible. I'm at a loss why folks that ask for assistance can't disclose what they're trying to do, and how they'd like to do it. So far, the main effort has been on fitting the end bell to the shaft, totally disregarding the fact that bearings are involved. That's the wrong approach to the job. At those velocities, the fit of the bearings is critical, it can't be ignored, not in my opinion. Harold You have only a small lathe, and one may presume one of the inexpensive ones, at that, so perhaps a second lathe of the same sort, dedicated to the toolpost grinding. And for the grinder, you could probably take a flexible-shaft Dremel tool and set it up on the toolpost for the grinding which you need to accomplish. Also -- how are you holding the shaft in your lathe? For those speeds, you will want your press fit ring to be truly concentric with the part which fits in the bearings, which excludes most 3-jaw chucks, and makes a 4-jaw chuck a real pain if you have a lot of these to true up and grind. Ideally, you would want a collet to hold the workpiece. I presume that in your attempts to turn the whole shaft to your desired diameter, you have a lot of it extending from the chuck. Note that this allows flex of the workpiece to make your surface finish a lot worse. You want to have as little extending beyond the workholder (chuck or collet) as possible. There are also other things which can be tuned up in the lathe to improve the surface finish, even while turning, not toolpost grinding. Perhaps some details as to *which* lathe would allow those familiar with that one to point out what is needed to make it have less flex in the critical areas. (Things like snuging up the gibs, and taking it apart to remove burrs from the dovetails so the fit of the gibs is better. Good Luck, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
Added video with audio to web page.
James wrote: Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James |
In article LdASd.13659$ds.4084@okepread07, James says...
So far I've used up 3' of A-1 in the 3.18mm size making the kits but trying to get 3.18 down to 3.08 has been a challenge. I don't understand this. 3.18 mm = 0.125(2) inch 3.08 mm = 0.121(3) inch If your lathe cannot turn down an 1/8 inch diameter shaft by four thousanths then I respectfully suggest what you need is a new lathe, not all the usenet help that has been supplied! Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
In article , DoN. Nichols says...
I would suggest that your shafts *must* be sized to fit the bearings, and only the *end* needs to be reduced to the press-fit size for your steel plate. How come nobody has suggested passing a one-under 1/8 inch reamer through this end bell? Seems like that's a good deal easier then machining the shaft with a lathe that won't cut to within a thousanth. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
"Eric R Snow" wrote in message ... So Harold didn't post numbers. That's no reason to insult him. Who was insulting? However, because you seem to know it all, (almost), I hope I'm misreading you as you misread me. It looks like you're insulting me. here are some numbers so your knowledge will be complete. Thank you. This is precisely what I was looking for. How about round to less than .00005, to size within .0001, on parts about 1.375 O.D., 1.500 long, with a 1.125 I.D.? How were the parts measured? Dimensioned in inches. Parts were nitrided to about 65 Rc. These were done in quantities, cheaply. These parts were first ground by someone who didn't know how to set up the grinder and were out of round (triangular) almost .0015. Since the tolerance was .0002 total all the parts were scrap. The next shop did 'em right. Maybe the person who told you that centerless grinders couldn't make round parts was the same one who ground and scrapped the first run of the above parts. That could be possible. I believe the reference was Cliff. This is why I suggested a discussion between Cliff and Harold. While it is unlikely that such a discussion would take place, there's a certain chance the comment would trigger a further discussion (which it has). Regards, Robin |
"Eric R Snow" wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:33:27 -0500, "Robin S." wrote: "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... Sorry, Robin. You have been misinformed. A properly set up centerless will yield what is, for all practical purposes, dead round parts. Only when they are run *on center* do they not. In fact, they are capable of very close work, with outstanding repeatability. No numbers? You should discuss with Cliff... Regards, Robin So Harold didn't post numbers. That's no reason to insult him. However, because you seem to know it all, (almost), here are some numbers so your knowledge will be complete. How about round to less than .00005, to size within .0001, on parts about 1.375 O.D., 1.500 long, with a 1.125 I.D.? Dimensioned in inches. Parts were nitrided to about 65 Rc. These were done in quantities, cheaply. These parts were first ground by someone who didn't know how to set up the grinder and were out of round (triangular) almost .0015. Since the tolerance was .0002 total all the parts were scrap. The next shop did 'em right. Maybe the person who told you that centerless grinders couldn't make round parts was the same one who ground and scrapped the first run of the above parts. ERS Thanks, Eric. That smart assed punk kid needs to be taught some respect. I've spent more hours running a centerless than that smart mouthed little ******* has been in the shop. It's plain damned amazing how someone can work in the trade for a couple years and get so knowledgeable that they know all about things they've never touched. I failed to disclose any numbers because that serves no purpose. A centerless grinder is capable of working to millionths, but not in the hands of a fool, as you discovered. I ran countless production runs of relatively small quantities (a few hundred parts) that were held to .00050" with no effort. Roundness was never a problem, and size was only because the machines take several hours to warm up, so you're constantly backing off the wheel until it settles down. A job was often finished before the machine was up to full operating temperature. By the way, Cincinnati talks about the tri-lobed condition in their operator's manuals. It's real easy to avoid. Your job would have been a serious challenge due to wall thickness, but light passes, 5/16" above center, with plenty of coolant, with all the grinding coming at the front of the wheel, allowing the balance of the wheel to spark the part, and they would come out beautifully. Harold |
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
... "DoN. Nichols" wrote in message ... snip---- While a toolpost grinder is a pain, and hard on the lathe itself, perhaps it might be reasonable for turning down only the end of the shaft to accept the press fit. Not if the material of choice is stainless, it wouldn't be reasonable. Stainless is difficult to grind under flood coolant conditions--and virtually impossible under dry conditions. The moment it starts to heat it expands into the wheel and snowballs. Been there, done that. I'm of the opinion he'd have lots better luck simply turning the end, starting with shaft size that fits the bearings properly. That's how I'd have approached the job at the outset. We're being spoon fed bits of information such that every time a comment is made, more information is disclosed, changing the concept, making helping almost impossible. I'm at a loss why folks that ask for assistance can't disclose what they're trying to do, and how they'd like to do it. So far, the main effort has been on fitting the end bell to the shaft, totally disregarding the fact that bearings are involved. That's the wrong approach to the job. At those velocities, the fit of the bearings is critical, it can't be ignored, not in my opinion. Harold But doesn't this sound like a Swiss screw-machine job to you? That's what the things were made for. The velocities are high but no motor I've ever seen has an armature so perfectly balanced that the shaft itself has to be machined to leadframe-die tolerances. If balance is that critical, you have to balance the assembled armature. Eh? -- Ed Huntress |
I apologize that this post has turned into name calling and insulting.
I apologize for not providing enough information to get the help I needed. The lathe I'm using is the Taig micro lathe. The armature is stationary and the rotor turns. The rotor is pressed steel and is very accurate. I install permanent magnets in the rotor using a jig I made and they are in balance. Witness the video on the web page where it's turning almost 40K rpm with no vibration. One company said they can supply the rod I need for $19.95 a meter so I ordered 3 meters. Thanks everyone for the great ideas and sources. James James wrote: Hi, I'm in need of some shafting that measures 3.08mm and is pretty true. I have some 3mm A-0 drill rod that is 3.18mm but can't turn it precise enough with my equipment to get the desired size. I would really like something like 416 stainless. Any ideas or help? Thanks James |
In article SbSSd.13698$ds.7818@okepread07, James says...
The lathe I'm using is the Taig micro lathe. That *should* be able to turn the shaft to teh tolerances you need. Also consider passing a one-under reamer through the end bell to size it to the shaft, rather than the sizing the shaft to fit the existing hole in the end bell. This will render the hole nearly 0.124 which will get you close to a good press fit. You can purchase an *adjustable* reamer to size the hole closer than that. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... Thanks, Eric. That smart assed punk kid needs to be taught some respect. I've spent more hours running a centerless than that smart mouthed little ******* has been in the shop. It's plain damned amazing how someone can work in the trade for a couple years and get so knowledgeable that they know all about things they've never touched. Harold, I don't appologise for writting what I wrote. You and Eric have misinterpreted me, thinking I was insulting you and suggesting that you do not know what you're talking about. I have never run a centerless grinder. I have (briefly) run a cylindrical grinder. I cannot comment, from experience, as to the performance of such a machine. As such (and because I'm in the field) I was interested in the type of accuracy obtainable using a cylindrical grinder. I failed to disclose any numbers because that serves no purpose. I believe it does serve a purpose. You yourself stated that the fit between a shaft and a bearing running at greater than 50,000RPM becomes very important. Knowing what a centerless grinder is capable of is important - esspecially when it is obvious that the original poster doesn't have a very deep background in metalworking. A centerless grinder is capable of working to millionths, These are numbers, and that's important. Esspecially when you state "millionths". I am interested, however, in further quantification. Are we talking 0-10 millionths? 10-100? Because I work in the automotive industry, I have a certain interest in this information (although my job does not deal with engine/transmission components at all). Most in this group are not particularly interested in the last 4 and 5 decimal places. There is a gentleman on AMC who deals with these numbers as he deals with engine components, and I find his work very interesting. Lastly, if you have a problem with me, it would be a courtesy to address me directly (publically or privately). To slander a member of a public forum in that forum is rude and dishonourable. Regards, Robin |
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: But doesn't this sound like a Swiss screw-machine job to you? That's what the things were made for. The velocities are high but no motor I've ever seen has an armature so perfectly balanced that the shaft itself has to be machined to leadframe-die tolerances. If balance is that critical, you have to balance the assembled armature. Eh? After looking at the pics, I'd have to say I could make the shaft and the motor mount complete in one op. on a Swiss in my sleep. Give me good c'less ground stock and I'll hold .0002" total on all diameters, .0001" is possible. If you're going to be making these in any knid of volume, another option would be to use a box tool, followed up by a roller burnisher (Cogsdill type). Even the most clapped out lathe can hold tight tolerance and finish that way. The burnishing tool has .0001" adjustment. You could pick up an old Brown and Sharpe 00 hand screw ( I sold mine for $500.00) or a Hardinge DSM hand screw and knock them out to +/- .0002 and a 16 Ra all day long. I agree with the bit about machining the shaft extension after assembly. I've seen it done in high volume production in Japan. You could also two op. the motor mount and hold similar or better tolerance in the bore. Dan |
jim rozen wrote in
: That *should* be able to turn the shaft to teh tolerances you need. Also consider passing a one-under reamer through the end bell to size it to the shaft, rather than the sizing the shaft to fit the existing hole in the end bell. This will render the hole nearly 0.124 which will get you close to a good press fit. You can purchase an *adjustable* reamer to size the hole closer than that. Good idea. Wht not knurl the end of the shaft with a straght knurl? That way you can have a more "open" tolerance and still maintain a press fit. Dan |
In article , Dan Murphy says...
Good idea. Wht not knurl the end of the shaft with a straght knurl? That way you can have a more "open" tolerance and still maintain a press fit. I don't think that's really needed. An adjustable reamer could be tweaked with a couple of setup pieces to get the correct press without knurling the shaft. It would be one more additional step that really does not make the final product any better. There's already little enough surface area in the design as is, knurling would tend to reduce that even more. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
"Robin S." wrote in message . .. "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... Thanks, Eric. That smart assed punk kid needs to be taught some respect. I've spent more hours running a centerless than that smart mouthed little ******* has been in the shop. It's plain damned amazing how someone can work in the trade for a couple years and get so knowledgeable that they know all about things they've never touched. Harold, I don't appologise for writting what I wrote. I should be surprised? You and Eric have misinterpreted me, thinking I was insulting you and suggesting that you do not know what you're talking about. Had someone posted that message to you, how would you have interpreted it? How many readers do you know that read anything Cliff has to say? Certainly I do not, not even a glance, although I don't have him bonked. What's the point? He's not worth the effort for me to do so, and for you to suggest I enter into dialogue with him on a subject about which he likely knows less than even you do is absurd. Further, I'm not interested in anyone that spends their time tearing to shreds the likes of Gunner. Gunner is what he is, and I accept him that way. He has some wonderful qualities, qualities that many others could use to better themselves as human beings. Gunner posts many things that don't interest me, but rarely are they unimportant to at least a few readers. I haven't noticed him spending his time tearing others down, not that he isn't capable. Having established that, should you have need to challenge something I have to say in the future, follow your own advice and bring it to me directly, not through innuendo or snide comments. I have never run a centerless grinder. I have (briefly) run a cylindrical grinder. I cannot comment, from experience, as to the performance of such a machine. As such (and because I'm in the field) I was interested in the type of accuracy obtainable using a cylindrical grinder. I failed to disclose any numbers because that serves no purpose. I believe it does serve a purpose. You yourself stated that the fit between a shaft and a bearing running at greater than 50,000RPM becomes very important. Knowing what a centerless grinder is capable of is important - esspecially when it is obvious that the original poster doesn't have a very deep background in metalworking. How the bearings fit a shaft have little to nothing to do with the capabilities of any given grinder. How a centerless grinder performs is up to the operator. If you make mistakes setting it up, it will pay you back with poor performance. For that reason it wasn't prudent for me to suggest that the parts he requires might be held to any specific tolerance. I would have no control over the job and how it might be run, so my suggestion may not turn out as it should and I'd be the one that lead someone down the wrong path. By suggesting a centerless was more than qualified for such a job was all one need know to pursue a project, just as it would be proper to suggest a lathe for a round object with external threads as opposed to suggesting a drop spindle mill. How hard can that be to grasp when I'm speaking to a person that is already somewhat familiar with machine tools (the OP had mentioned he had at his disposal a small lathe). The mere suggestion that the machine is capable when properly operated, after your comment that they can't provide round work, was more than adequate to eliminate any question about a course one *could* follow. A centerless grinder is capable of working to millionths, These are numbers, and that's important. Esspecially when you state "millionths". I am interested, however, in further quantification. Are we talking 0-10 millionths? 10-100? You haven't learned anything yet, apparently. Read what I said above, and do it until it makes sense to you. I spent considerable time running a 251 Heald internal grinder processing bearing housings for the guidance system of the Sergeant Missile. We had but +.0002"/0000" tolerance on a 1.6250" bore. Using a Federal air gage, we could measure to millionths, and would often find a bore bordering on minimum tolerance. Inspection occurred at the machine, so any anomalies could be dealt with appropriately. While the Heald was built to work to tenths, it was a simple matter to take out .000020" millionths to bring the part in, *if you knew how*,and it was never accomplished with the feed, which would risk scrapping a part. In essence, what I'm saying is that nothing replaces skill and experience. In the hands of a fool, it might be difficult for the operator to hold a half thou, and in fact I'd suggest it would be, plus getting a good finish could be challenging. One must know and understand how a centerless works, and have a machine that is in good condition before expecting any particular level of quality------so----once again, I hesitate to reply. The machine is likely capable, the operator may not be. I can't answer that, no more than you can tell me that you'd be good at grinding. You may think you would be, but it may not be true. Not many make a good grinder. Because I work in the automotive industry, I have a certain interest in this information (although my job does not deal with engine/transmission components at all). Most in this group are not particularly interested in the last 4 and 5 decimal places. There is a gentleman on AMC who deals with these numbers as he deals with engine components, and I find his work very interesting. Lastly, if you have a problem with me, it would be a courtesy to address me directly (publically or privately). To slander a member of a public forum in that forum is rude and dishonourable. Slander? Chuckle! I call 'em as I see them. You want me to have a different opinion of you, show me something different than you've been showing me. If you want my respect, try showing some. You could have chosen a dozen ways to make your comment (that you claim was a question) and have it be one instead of a left handed compliment. I don't think you're clever, and I don't think you're cute. If you want to discuss an issue, stand up like a man and ask a question so it appears to be one. In case you haven't noticed, I tend to have fairly friendly conversations with people that show respect, which I gladly return. I share with them, to the best of my ability, that which I have learned through the years. Sometimes I'm even wrong. You want in on some of my questionable knowledge, act like it. Harold |
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... "DoN. Nichols" wrote in message ... snip---- While a toolpost grinder is a pain, and hard on the lathe itself, perhaps it might be reasonable for turning down only the end of the shaft to accept the press fit. Not if the material of choice is stainless, it wouldn't be reasonable. Stainless is difficult to grind under flood coolant conditions--and virtually impossible under dry conditions. The moment it starts to heat it expands into the wheel and snowballs. Been there, done that. I'm of the opinion he'd have lots better luck simply turning the end, starting with shaft size that fits the bearings properly. That's how I'd have approached the job at the outset. We're being spoon fed bits of information such that every time a comment is made, more information is disclosed, changing the concept, making helping almost impossible. I'm at a loss why folks that ask for assistance can't disclose what they're trying to do, and how they'd like to do it. So far, the main effort has been on fitting the end bell to the shaft, totally disregarding the fact that bearings are involved. That's the wrong approach to the job. At those velocities, the fit of the bearings is critical, it can't be ignored, not in my opinion. Harold But doesn't this sound like a Swiss screw-machine job to you? That's what the things were made for. The velocities are high but no motor I've ever seen has an armature so perfectly balanced that the shaft itself has to be machined to leadframe-die tolerances. If balance is that critical, you have to balance the assembled armature. Eh? -- Ed Huntress Good point, Ed. I've personally never been around a Swiss screw machine, but the idea conjures some wonderful visions. Regards the shaft, when I read he was using Loc-Tite for the bearings, and was fighting the press fit for the hub, I had this terrible vision of shafts that were a couple thou under being glued inside bearings in gawd knows where, rendering them off center. I was concentrating on that. Truth be known, what Jim had to say ring dead true. What prevents this entire assembly from being made form commercially available precision ground 303 stock (PIC has it on the shelf, or at least they used to) and press the stamped housing in place *after* opening it with a reamer. Nice suggestion, Jim. That could all be accomplished with nothing more than a simple lathe and drill press. Harold |
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... You and Eric have misinterpreted me, thinking I was insulting you and suggesting that you do not know what you're talking about. Had someone posted that message to you, how would you have interpreted it? Perhaps with some numbers? What are the metaltrades without tolerances? How many readers do you know that read anything Cliff has to say? I don't really know anyone here. Nor do I now who they think knows somthing, and who is full of bs. Certainly I do not, not even a glance, although I don't have him bonked. What's the point? He's not worth the effort for me to do so, and for you to suggest I enter into dialogue with him on a subject about which he likely knows less than even you do is absurd. Why? You discuss processes here with people who know virtually nothing about them... Further, I'm not interested in anyone that spends their time tearing to shreds the likes of Gunner. Gunner is what he is, and I accept him that way. He has some wonderful qualities, qualities that many others could use to better themselves as human beings. Gunner posts many things that don't interest me, but rarely are they unimportant to at least a few readers. I haven't noticed him spending his time tearing others down, not that he isn't capable. Where did Gunner come from? Having established that, should you have need to challenge something I have to say in the future, follow your own advice and bring it to me directly, not through innuendo or snide comments. My comments were neither. How the bearings fit a shaft have little to nothing to do with the capabilities of any given grinder. You're making assumptions about the original poster. Does he understand that grinders are typically capable of exceptional accuracy? What if I told him to do it with an angle grinder, or a die grinder? Would he know the difference? Why should he believe you? What if he had believed me? How a centerless grinder performs is up to the operator. If you make mistakes setting it up, it will pay you back with poor performance. Show me a machine in which this is not the case. For that reason it wasn't prudent for me to suggest that the parts he requires might be held to any specific tolerance. Why not? We do that in industry all the time. A process's capability is precisely how we select them. I would have no control over the job and how it might be run, so my suggestion may not turn out as it should and I'd be the one that lead someone down the wrong path. By suggesting *any* process, and not actually performing it, you cannot guarentee anything at all. Why is centerless grinding any different? By suggesting a centerless was more than qualified for such a job was all one need know to pursue a project, What if his local centerless shop was incapable (as Eric's first vendor was) of holding an appropirate tolerance for that process? How would the original poster know what he was supposed to get? just as it would be proper to suggest a lathe for a round object with external threads as opposed to suggesting a drop spindle mill. I'm not sure what a drop spindle mill is, but I can certainly make a round part with external threads on a mill, and it is not uncommon to do so. How hard can that be to grasp when I'm speaking to a person that is already somewhat familiar with machine tools (the OP had mentioned he had at his disposal a small lathe). The OP said he couldn't turn the shaft down to a tolerance of less than ..004". How familiar is he? The mere suggestion that the machine is capable when properly operated, after your comment that they can't provide round work, was more than adequate to eliminate any question about a course one *could* follow. True. I was wrong, and I admit it. Now I know better (with your help, and I thank you for it). These are numbers, and that's important. Esspecially when you state "millionths". I am interested, however, in further quantification. Are we talking 0-10 millionths? 10-100? You haven't learned anything yet, apparently. Read what I said above, and do it until it makes sense to you. Machines have a certain capability. While there is some change depending on the operator/company/machine, one can make certain generalizations about a machine. If not, how would anyone select one process from another? I spent considerable time running a 251 Heald internal grinder processing bearing housings for the guidance system of the Sergeant Missile. We had but +.0002"/0000" tolerance on a 1.6250" bore. Using a Federal air gage, we could measure to millionths, and would often find a bore bordering on minimum tolerance. Inspection occurred at the machine, so any anomalies could be dealt with appropriately. While the Heald was built to work to tenths, it was a simple matter to take out .000020" millionths to bring the part in, *if you knew how*,and it was never accomplished with the feed, which would risk scrapping a part. In essence, what I'm saying is that nothing replaces skill and experience. No one has suggested otherwise. While I've never run a centerless (or internal) grinder, I do have to work with other people, and you're certainly right about skill and experience. In the hands of a fool, it might be difficult for the operator to hold a half thou, and in fact I'd suggest it would be, plus getting a good finish could be challenging. One must know and understand how a centerless works, and have a machine that is in good condition before expecting any particular level of quality------so----once again, I hesitate to reply. So the OP has no idea what to expect. He may believe that +/-.0005 is pretty damn good. The machine is likely capable, the operator may not be. I can't answer that, no more than you can tell me that you'd be good at grinding. You may think you would be, but it may not be true. Not many make a good grinder. I don't understand that conneciton. Why such over-complication? Slander? Chuckle! I call 'em as I see them. Well, life is full of choices. You chose your words (as we all do) and you certainly had choices. You want me to have a different opinion of you, show me something different than you've been showing me. I was *asking* you to explain the specific nature of centerless grinders and the parts they produce. If you want my respect, try showing some. I don't want your respect. You could have chosen a dozen ways to make your comment (that you claim was a question) and have it be one instead of a left handed compliment. And you could have chosen a dozen ways to say what you did. I don't think you're clever, and I don't think you're cute. Harold, why do I care about what you think of me? Why do you care what anyone here thinks of you? If you want to discuss an issue, stand up like a man and ask a question so it appears to be one. I asked for numbers. Sorry if I'm slightly blunt - perhaps I've been in a shop for too long? In case you haven't noticed, I tend to have fairly friendly conversations with people that show respect, which I gladly return. Yes, I can remember specific instances myself. I share with them, to the best of my ability, that which I have learned through the years. Sometimes I'm even wrong. You want in on some of my questionable knowledge, act like it. I don't appologize for what I said (nor do I think I was out of line to ask it as I did), but it is unfortunate that you were so offended by my question. Regards, Robin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter