On 11/25/2013 6:33 PM, Leon wrote:
On 11/25/2013 5:59 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

Weather is usally single digit precision. Usually.

(Grin)

The measurements may be, but climatologists know the rate of global
warming to a tenth of a degree.




ROTFLMAO!



No kidding I just read, and it has to be true cuz i read it on the
internet, that scientist have decided that we in north America and in
Europe we are headed doe a mini ice age. Apparently the SUN, that's
right THE SUN has been causing the earth to get warm! Well apparently
the sun has been falling down on the jolately, maybe the people working
for Al Gore gave up. The sun has had much fewer than expected sun spots
and as a result we are going to experience colder weather. I always
called the global warming thing summer.


Anyway how are we going to be able to afford changing things here on
earth so that the sun is not affected, which in turn keeps us from
turning into an ice cube???


http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/...adual-decline/





Sorry. Old news.

Ol' Sol caught up with the curve last week.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/11/08/gargantuan-explosion-sun-rips-open-canyon-fire/#more-5329

On 11/25/2013 6:28 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Richard wrote:

On 11/25/2013 3:46 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
? "Michael A. ? on Mon, 25 Nov 2013
? 01:12:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
?? Richard wrote:
???
??? Now THAT'S an old computer - rock for zero, stick for one...
??
?? You just had to stick that in here, didn't you? ;-)
?
? He's lucky he had sticks. All we had were the rocks and sand.
? Rock/no rock. that's all we had.?http://xkcd.com/505/?"

But we LIKED it!


I know you did. And it scared all your neighbors away!.




Yeah well, I didn't like them anyway...

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:33:23 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 11/25/2013 5:59 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

Weather is usally single digit precision. Usually.

(Grin)

The measurements may be, but climatologists know the rate of global
warming to a tenth of a degree.




ROTFLMAO!



No kidding I just read, and it has to be true cuz i read it on the
internet, that scientist have decided that we in north America and in
Europe we are headed doe a mini ice age. Apparently the SUN, that's
right THE SUN has been causing the earth to get warm! Well apparently
the sun has been falling down on the jolately, maybe the people working
for Al Gore gave up. The sun has had much fewer than expected sun spots
and as a result we are going to experience colder weather. I always
called the global warming thing summer.

Indeed. How is the government going to justify raising taxes because
of global COOLING?

Anyway how are we going to be able to afford changing things here on
earth so that the sun is not affected, which in turn keeps us from
turning into an ice cube???


http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/...adual-decline/


Fire the astronomers. They're ruining the scam!

Richard wrote:

On 11/25/2013 6:28 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
?
? I know you did. And it scared all your neighbors away!.

Yeah well, I didn't like them anyway...



There's a lot of that going around.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Gunner Asch on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:35:22 -0800
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:49:49 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com on Mon, 25 Nov
2013 11:49:47 -0600 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet fired this volley in
news:062dnVEpXqyDHw7PnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d@giganews. com:

I am a woodworker and routinely work with pieces that measure in 1/8"
resolution however the program is quite capable of accurately and quite
quickly drawing a box that is 4 1/16 x 5 3/64 x 9 19/32.

If I were using it for woodworking, I assume those accuracies would be
adequate, if a little gross for a CNC router...

But I work daily with sub-thousandth measurements. Do you really
understand how funny dealing with "thirty-secondths" sounds to a
metalworker?

As the watchmaker's apprentice said when seeing a 1/4-28 tap "My
God, I didn't know they made them that big!"
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


ROFLMAO!!

Gunner, with a 1 1/8"x 10 x 1 1/2" x 11 tap on his desk

Yep. All depends on what you are used to working with.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Gunner Asch on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:33:52 -0800
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:09:48 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote:
"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote

And for the most part a majority in this thread! LOL. There are a few
that may not be and rightfully so but just because I drive a Maserati does
not mean I use it to it's limits. The Camry works just fine and in many
practical ways out performs the Maserati.

Far be it for me to criticize you Leon (you do good work) but I just can not
visualize you in a Camry.

But your point is well taken.

Reminds me of a job I did years ago. I was working with corporate
publications and was hired to figure out the best way to send out
publications to a select group that needed updates on a semiregular basis.
I checked out several types of binding and distribution. My conclusion? 3
ring binders! I got them in contact with a source to make them up some
binders and dividers.. And it was a success. They just copied the
material on 3 hole sheets and sent it out. Simple. And better than any
other alternative. Simple trumps complicated crap every time. Particularly
if it gets the job done quick and easily.

True indeed. On the other hand..simple isnt always "simple"

Build a grade 8 ball bearing.

Its simple.

Then do a grade 9

It too is simple...

Grin

I have noticed, over the years, that the simplest instructions are
usually the most difficult or time consumptive. Make grade 8 ball
bearings. Build a wing in 3D space in CATIA. Put a canal across the
Isthmus of Panama. Send men to the moon and bring them back in the
next decade. Change the timing belt.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Gunner Asch on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:37:40 -0800
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:49:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:
On 11/25/2013 12:25 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:00:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:
I am a woodworker and routinely work with pieces that measure in 1/8"
resolution

Oh..you work to .125 tolerances then?

No, that is not what I said, I said I routinely work with pieces that
measure in 1/8" resolution. The tolerances have to be much greater for
a joint to disappear.

Grin

There is a difference between resolution and tolerance. They are not
the same. I simply choose to design using 1/8" as my smallest
increment. The cuts have to be as close to that measurement as
possible. A piece that calls to be 48.125" needs to be as close to that
as possible. 48.120" is way not close enough if you don't want the
joint to stick out like a sore thumb.

Then stack on top of that the wood greatly changes shape, relative to
steel, depending on the relative humidity and a project may have several
hundred pieces that interlock with each other. We wood workers work in
pretty tight tolerances too but don't draw project pieces to sizes that
include minute fractions for the sake of having odd lengths and widths.
I realize this is required in smaller sized metal working projects
where size dictates higher precision.

And in big ones too. As Pytor indicated...he turned 30' shafts that
were in .0004 tolerance. 30 Foot shafts.

Not me - that was the Experts. The parts themselves had a
tolerance of .005 iirc. That was the easy part. Anyone can turn a 3
foot diameter shaft to within 5 thou. The tricky part is making sure
that the entire piece was within 4/10ths of a thousandth of an inch at
what ever diameter you reached - over a twenty to thirty foot length.
On manual machines. Originally installed for war work (I didn't ask
"Which war") on what used to be tide flats.

OTOH, ever try to locate and measure the ridges in the bore of a
shaft, what is sixteen feet deep? Pretty smooth to look at, but
reading a dial gauge when it is more than a couple feet into the bore
gets to be a real trick. (Put a scope on a magnetic clamp and sight
through that.)
Then came honing the bore out. The hones took off about a tenth
each pass, it takes six minutes to make one pass. Some of the ridges
were 10 to 15 thou high. It was boring work, but it paid the bills.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Michael A. Terrell" on Mon, 25 Nov 2013
19:25:25 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Gunner Asch wrote:

And in big ones too. As Pytor indicated...he turned 30' shafts that
were in .0004 tolerance. 30 Foot shafts.

Well, if you're going to give someone the shaft, you might as well do
it right. ;-)

Especially at those prices!


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On 11/25/2013 7:43 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Richard wrote:

On 11/25/2013 6:28 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
?
? I know you did. And it scared all your neighbors away!.

Yeah well, I didn't like them anyway...



There's a lot of that going around.


The new neighbors are a lot nicer tho.
They don't stack their trash cans in my driveway.
I appreciate that...

On 2013-11-25, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 11/25/2013 1:00 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/25/2013 12:52 PM, Leon wrote:

Understood, I was talking more about the actual drawn dimension having
limitations to their resolution.

Like this:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...t=d irectlink







No, can you think/tell me what that converts to as a fraction off the
top of your head? LOL My calculated industries calculator can't
either. ;~)

I like to see fractions, on my drawings, that I can actually come close
to reproducing. ;~)

That is a difference in measurement techniques and machine
design. Most machine tools have dials which read on 0.001" (or finer
for some machines), but in decimal format anyway.

Way back when, machinists worked to 1/128" at best (the Vernier
calipers would measure to that, while scales were marked to 1/64" at
best. But then, to make a running fit in a bearing, they would use
inside calipers and outside calipers to transfer measurements from one
to the other. Bore the bearing hole, take the measurement with an
inside caliper, transfer that measurement to an outside caliper (by
closing one onto the other by feel -- these had and have no markings)
and then machine the shaft to fit the bearing by slowly removing metal
until the outside calipers just slide over it with the right "feel".
(the calipers will spring a bit, so you need to learn what the right
feel is.)

These days, you purchase the shaft, measure it with a micrometer
to be sure that it is what it is claimed to be, (in decimal fractions of
an inch), make a trial bore with the cross-feed dial on the lathe
zeroed, measure the bore it produced, subtract that from the desired
size, divide by two (since most machine's cross-feeds are calibrated in
radius, not diameter) amd for rough work, just set it and bore. If you
need more precision, you approach the final cut in finer cuts, so set
that your last cut will be the same depth as the others, measure as you
approach it to be sure.

And (on a regular lathe, if you want even finer precision, you set
up a toolpost grinder, set the compound at an angle which gives you
1/10th the measurement infeed (5.7392 degrees, but you are likely to
only set it near to 5.75 degrees given the accuracy of the compound's
built-in protractor, and sneak up on the final dimensions. At last with
surface grinding, you don't have the degree of spring that you do with
normal turning.

And -- if you need even more precision, you bore and grind to
just under size, and then use a roller burnishing tool to mash the
surface down to a smoother finish at the desired measurement.

Or -- you use lapping to get that final finish and dimension.

The above is how *I* would approach greater and greater
precision on my machines.

This is how it could be done on a manual machine -- especially
one in a home hobby workshop (such as mine). CNC changes the game
somewhat. But -- the whole time you are working with tools and
instruments which read and are set in decimal factions of an inch, so
there is never a need to convert something like your 144.531250" to
144 & 17/32", and you never *think* in fractional inches. If you did, you
would be reaching for a calculator all the time. Maybe you buy your
shafting in fractional sizes, such as 0.500" or 0.375" or 0.125". Yes,
these are fractional sizes, but you *think* of them in decimal inches.

BTW The conversion with my scientific calculator (HP 15C) is done
with no problems -- discard the integer inch part, multiply the
decimal faction by the largest likely denominator (64), see that
it reads an even number, so multiply by two (converting to 32nds
instead of 64ths and get an odd precise integer number, so you
are there. Then add back the integer part of the overall
dimension once you have your fractional part right.

There are *some* digital calipers which will read in both
decimal factions of an inch, and in the nearest fractional inch size --
but you are unlikely to find a machinist using one of these for the
fractional readings -- which are, after all, just a "nearest fractional
size", not a "true reading", or you would wind up needing it to display
at least down to 1/1024th of an inch (to be close to the metalworking
basic of 1/1000" -- in some fields called a "mil" -- such as in the pin
layout dimensions for integrated circuits in electronics -- useful for
designing printed circuit boards. Some few of us got into metalworking
from the electronics field (as did I), but we seldom mention "mils" as
it confuses those measuring in mm (Millimeters -- a very different unit.

I've seen these "fractional reading" digital calipers, but never
been tempted to buy them. I just don't *think* in fractional inches
most of the time. Some few places, it is convenient. 16 Ga steel is
very close to 1/16", so I can convert that to 0.0625" and be close
enough to tell 16 ga from other sizes. (And no, that does not work
anywhere else, as the larger the gauge number, the thinner the metal.
This is related to how it is formed, progressively rolled thinner and
thinner, so it is just a lucky crossover point -- and where the limits
of my sheet metal brake and shear happen to be, so it is easy to check
whether I should try the sheet metal in those tools or not.

Enjoy,
DoN.

P.S. Not sure why I am bothering to post in this cross-posted
argument, but at least it is metalworking related, not
political. :-)

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | (KV4PH) 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 ---

On 2013-11-25, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m wrote:


Jim Wilkins wrote:

[ ... ]

http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/ge...icron-accuracy
"The axis position feedback system uses a 0.5-nanometer scale to
reliably track axis motion commands programmable in steps as small as
10 nanometers."

Yes that machine should be able to cut 3d parts so they match
the 3d computer geometry to within a tenth.
However, the CAD model of the part can be made a million times more
accurate than even that machine can manufacture.

I didn't say there were no way to produce complicated 3d
parts that are within a tenth of the 3d CAD model.
I said that I doubt anyone reading this was doing that. You
still haven't changed my mind.




I've watched a large aspherical Germanium infrared camera lens being
diamond-turned to a mirror-like submicron finish on a CNC lathe.

Turning something on a lathe doesn't need a 3d model.
That is not 3d machining.

Turning an *aspherical* lens does need a model, and a very
precise and mathematically complex one at that, to cause it to focus
where it should. And you can't check a Germanium lens by the techniques
used for visible-light lenses -- they are opaque to visible light, so
you want it cut right the first time. Same applies to silicon lenses.
I've seen both used in various experimental Infrared cameras.

And watching someone else do it doesn't count as doing.

He did not say that he was watching someone else do it. He was
watching the *machine* do it. No *human* does it with CNC. At best
s/he feeds the data to a program which generates the motions necessary
to produce the surface to feed to the CNC machine tool.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | (KV4PH) 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 ---

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:37:09 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:35:22 -0800
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:49:49 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com on Mon, 25 Nov
2013 11:49:47 -0600 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet fired this volley in
news:062dnVEpXqyDHw7PnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d@giganews .com:

I am a woodworker and routinely work with pieces that measure in 1/8"
resolution however the program is quite capable of accurately and quite
quickly drawing a box that is 4 1/16 x 5 3/64 x 9 19/32.

If I were using it for woodworking, I assume those accuracies would be
adequate, if a little gross for a CNC router...

But I work daily with sub-thousandth measurements. Do you really
understand how funny dealing with "thirty-secondths" sounds to a
metalworker?

As the watchmaker's apprentice said when seeing a 1/4-28 tap "My
God, I didn't know they made them that big!"
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


ROFLMAO!!

Gunner, with a 1 1/8"x 10 x 1 1/2" x 11 tap on his desk

Yep. All depends on what you are used to working with.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Im surprised that no one noticed that the tap...is two taps diameters,
two different threads..on the same tap body.


__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Heinlein

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Richard wrote:

On 11/25/2013 7:43 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Richard wrote:

On 11/25/2013 6:28 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
?
? I know you did. And it scared all your neighbors away!.

Yeah well, I didn't like them anyway...



There's a lot of that going around.


The new neighbors are a lot nicer tho.
They don't stack their trash cans in my driveway.
I appreciate that...


The only good neighbors I've had around here have either moved away,
or died.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:03:05 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I showed my dado extender jig, e-mail me and I-ll explain further. This
is kind of a trade secret. stupid simple but a time saver and a must
when attaching any face frame to any side, top or bottom panel.

I tried to email you and it bounced back as not being found. Have you
by chance changed your email address?

Anyway, I'll try again later in the day.

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
news
No kidding I just read, and it has to be true cuz i read
it on the internet, that scientist have decided that we
in north America and in Europe we are headed doe a mini
ice age. Apparently the SUN, that's right THE SUN has
been causing the earth to get warm! Well apparently the
sun has been falling down on the jolately, maybe the
people working for Al Gore gave up. The sun has had much
fewer than expected sun spots and as a result we are
going to experience colder weather. I always called the
global warming thing summer.

Anyway how are we going to be able to afford changing
things here on earth so that the sun is not affected,
which in turn keeps us from turning into an ice cube???

1. Build a giant funnel

2. Attach servo motors so it can track the sun

3. Place over Congress

4. Hot air rises...


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

I have noticed, over the years, that the simplest instructions are
usually the most difficult or time consumptive. Make grade 8 ball
bearings. Build a wing in 3D space in CATIA. Put a canal across
the
Isthmus of Panama. Send men to the moon and bring them back in the
next decade. Change the timing belt.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

I thought $600 to change a timing belt was robbery until I did the job
myself.
jsw

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...

Very good description!

I've memorized the decimals down to 16ths but the simple approach is
to hang a decimal equivalents chart near the machine, as it also gives
the nearest fractional or metric collet size to your workpiece
diameter and shows english-metric equivalents.
http://cdn.mscdirect.com/global/imag...651680A-11.jpg
jsw

On 11/26/2013 5:51 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:03:05 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I showed my dado extender jig, e-mail me and I-ll explain further. This
is kind of a trade secret. stupid simple but a time saver and a must
when attaching any face frame to any side, top or bottom panel.

I tried to email you and it bounced back as not being found. Have you
by chance changed your email address?

Anyway, I'll try again later in the day.



I did not change my address, replace dot with "."

"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
. ..


Try swapping out the windshield of an MGB.

No thanks, I had friends with MGs and Jags and learned my lesson to
avoid them. My Honda Civic cornered tighter than my buddy's MG Midget,
though he was the better and crazier racer.

A local dealer had a Lotus in his showroom. I sat in it, opened the
glovebox door for a flat place to put my coffee, and watched it sag
down under the weight of the cup.
jsw

On 11/26/2013 11:11 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
jim wrote:


I'm saying that any CAD system can produce geometry that
is far more accurate than any manufacturing process.

Fun fact: when they built the difference engines from Babbage's
designs, they needed to compensate for the fact that the CNC
machine they were building it on was accurate to 1/10,000
inch but the manufacturing processes of Babbage's time were
only accurate to 1/2000 inch.

They not only wanted to know if the machine would work as Babbage designed
it, but they wanted to know if Babbage could really have built it.
So they added 1/2000" of random noise to the CNC data before giving the
data to the machines.


A program like Sketchup caters to people who want to
model something that looks good without paying much attention
precise numbers. But that doesn't mean it is sloppy. It just
means it is not as easy to hit the exact numbers you may want as
in other programs that cater to people who want models driven
by precise numerical inputs instead of mouse actions.

I've had a lot of trouble with Sketchup working in sub-1/4"
sizes. I'm making some toys for a friend now with parts down
to 1mm.

Try it yourself at home: make a 1/4" sphere by sweeping a circle
over 180 degrees, or any other way you want.

What I normally do is scale my model up 1000x, work on it, and
then scale it back down.

It shouldn't be like that, and I'm not entirely sure why it is;
precise or not, it shouldn't be so affected by working scale factor.

I see this a lot in models downloaded from the warehouse. You download
a chess set or something, and find out all the pieces are ten feet tall.


If you design something large, and shrink it, it will probably look
better. Compare to the pixel resolution of digital images.

"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Fun fact: when they built the difference engines from Babbage's
designs, they needed to compensate for the fact that the CNC
machine they were building it on was accurate to 1/10,000
inch but the manufacturing processes of Babbage's time were
only accurate to 1/2000 inch.

They not only wanted to know if the machine would work as Babbage
designed
it, but they wanted to know if Babbage could really have built it.
So they added 1/2000" of random noise to the CNC data before giving
the
data to the machines.


The machine was built by Joseph Clement, one of the founding geniuses
of the Industrial Revolution, who learned his skills from the great
masters Joseph Bramah and Henry Maudslay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Clement
"The recognised excellence of Clement's machine tools and his skill in
precision engineering led to him being employed by Charles Babbage in
1823 to work on his project to design and build his mechanical
calculating device, the difference engine."

jsw

On 11/26/2013 10:11 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:

I've had a lot of trouble with Sketchup working in sub-1/4"
sizes. I'm making some toys for a friend now with parts down
to 1mm.

Try it yourself at home: make a 1/4" sphere by sweeping a circle
over 180 degrees, or any other way you want.

What I normally do is scale my model up 1000x, work on it, and
then scale it back down.

It shouldn't be like that, and I'm not entirely sure why it is;
precise or not, it shouldn't be so affected by working scale factor.

I see this a lot in models downloaded from the warehouse. You download
a chess set or something, and find out all the pieces are ten feet tall.

Every single item above due solely to total lack of understanding of how
the software works, just as those who use a screw driver for a hammer
won't be happy with the results.

Instead of rebutting the operator error in each statement above, start
here to learn how to correctly use the softwa

http://www.sketchup.com/learn/videos?playlist=58

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

"Jim Wilkins" on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:37:57
-0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .

I have noticed, over the years, that the simplest instructions are
usually the most difficult or time consumptive. Make grade 8 ball
bearings. Build a wing in 3D space in CATIA. Put a canal across
the
Isthmus of Panama. Send men to the moon and bring them back in the
next decade. Change the timing belt.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

I thought $600 to change a timing belt was robbery until I did the job
myself.

Don't ask ...

The one time - I took it to a shop, left it after work (and I
worked nights). Got up the next day, walked over - and was informed
that it had broken just as they tried to get my truck into the shop.
I'd say that was pretty much maximizing the useful life of the part.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On 11/25/2013 5:34 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 11/23/2013 4:00 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:33:32 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 11/21/2013 11:22 AM, Richard wrote:

SketchUp actually has the same internal precision as AutoCad, 1/1000th
of an inch.

Look it up ...


1/1000th inch? Is that all???

LOL

Good enough for AutoCAD, and certainly well within the specifications of
the OP's original request.

Some of us have to work to .00005" or smaller.

Well even fewer of us work to .0000000000000000000000000000000000005" or
smaller but that still does not mean you need a program to do that when
.0001 is way more than enough.

Depends on your application. I agree that .0001" is more than enough for
woodworking, but I can easily imagine machining applications where it's
not enough. When I took introduction to milling and metal lathe classes,
we were expected to machine something to within .0001" even as beginners.

1 /10000 as beginners?
Ridiculous. that's an experienced machinist, not a beginner.
Possible yes, practical.. not at all.

--
Jeff

"woodchucker" wrote in message
...
On 11/25/2013 5:34 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote
...When I took introduction to milling and metal lathe classes,
we were expected to machine something to within .0001" even as
beginners.

1 /10000 as beginners?
Ridiculous. that's an experienced machinist, not a beginner.
Possible yes, practical.. not at all.
Jeff

It is not unreasonable on a good lathe if an experienced machinist is
coaching the beginner.

jsw

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:15:27 -0500, woodchucker
wrote:

On 11/25/2013 5:34 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 11/23/2013 4:00 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:33:32 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 11/21/2013 11:22 AM, Richard wrote:

SketchUp actually has the same internal precision as AutoCad, 1/1000th
of an inch.

Look it up ...


1/1000th inch? Is that all???

LOL

Good enough for AutoCAD, and certainly well within the specifications of
the OP's original request.

Some of us have to work to .00005" or smaller.

Well even fewer of us work to .0000000000000000000000000000000000005" or
smaller but that still does not mean you need a program to do that when
.0001 is way more than enough.

Depends on your application. I agree that .0001" is more than enough for
woodworking, but I can easily imagine machining applications where it's
not enough. When I took introduction to milling and metal lathe classes,
we were expected to machine something to within .0001" even as beginners.

1 /10000 as beginners?
Ridiculous. that's an experienced machinist, not a beginner.
Possible yes, practical.. not at all.

Actually..it is quite possible for beginners to do on manual machines
(CNC..easy as pushing the green button)

Will they be doing this on their own in the first 10 minutes in front
of a machine?

No. But with a mentor..they can be doing it in an hour. Teaching
them to read the mike is a hell of a lot harder to do.


__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Heinlein

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"Jim Wilkins" on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:08:35
-0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"woodchucker" wrote in message
.. .
On 11/25/2013 5:34 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote
...When I took introduction to milling and metal lathe classes,
we were expected to machine something to within .0001" even as
beginners.

1 /10000 as beginners?
Ridiculous. that's an experienced machinist, not a beginner.
Possible yes, practical.. not at all.
Jeff

It is not unreasonable on a good lathe if an experienced machinist is
coaching the beginner.

It also teaches the beginner that a) yes it is possible, and b)
you might as well learn it now...

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Gunner Asch on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:57:53 -0800
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Depends on your application. I agree that .0001" is more than enough for
woodworking, but I can easily imagine machining applications where it's
not enough. When I took introduction to milling and metal lathe classes,
we were expected to machine something to within .0001" even as beginners.

1 /10000 as beginners?
Ridiculous. that's an experienced machinist, not a beginner.
Possible yes, practical.. not at all.

Actually..it is quite possible for beginners to do on manual machines
(CNC..easy as pushing the green button)

Will they be doing this on their own in the first 10 minutes in front
of a machine?

No. But with a mentor..they can be doing it in an hour. Teaching
them to read the mike is a hell of a lot harder to do.

Oh yeah. And still is. Or at least I have to refresh just about
every time I go to use the durn thing.


__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:26:27 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Anyway, I'll try again later in the day.
I did not change my address, replace dot with "."

Between the mortises, rabbets and Domino joinery, I don't know if I'd
have the patience to build the way you do. I guess once you develop
the system and get in the habit of using it, the rest just comes
naturally. It looks good and it's solidly built. I sure hope your
customers appreciate the quality of the products they get from you.
The everyday furniture I see up here is absolute junk compared to what
you build. Maybe I need to visit some good quality cabinet builders.

Was the dado extender jig, the one with the picture that had the Kreg
joinery? If you can email me If so, I wouldn't mind some additional
explanation. I have your proper email address and I've emailed you in
the past, but right now I still can't email you directly. If you can
email me, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks

On 11/26/2013 6:49 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:

Try this exercise: make a hemisphere 1/4" in diameter.

Seehttp://imgur.com/a/E3J4p for two hemispheres I made in Sketchup.
One was 0.125" in radius and the other was 125" in radius. I used the
exact same technique to make each of them. I was using Sketchup 8.

I've tried it using different techniques in the past, and had
different results, but they were still wrong.

If you can create this shape at 1/4" scale, I'd be interested in
finding out how you did it. I suppose if you're more persistent than
I was, you'll find a way. But as far as I know, the only way is to
make it larger, then shrink it down.

What techniques did you use and what was the error/problem?

I'm assuming you used the "follow me" tool and two concentric circles to
draw your sphere?

Don't have time this morning to check it out, but the first question
that comes to mind is did you "divide" your arc(s) into smaller segments
to get a smoother curve, and if so, how many?

I see how this could be a processor/graphics subsystem limit because
using smaller line segments (100) on an arc eats up a lot of cpu cycles.

Interesting, I'll give it shot this evening, but it would help to know
what error you experienced.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/27/2013 8:31 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:26:27 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Anyway, I'll try again later in the day.
I did not change my address, replace dot with "."

Between the mortises, rabbets and Domino joinery, I don't know if I'd
have the patience to build the way you do. I guess once you develop
the system and get in the habit of using it, the rest just comes
naturally. It looks good and it's solidly built. I sure hope your
customers appreciate the quality of the products they get from you.
The everyday furniture I see up here is absolute junk compared to what
you build. Maybe I need to visit some good quality cabinet builders.

Was the dado extender jig, the one with the picture that had the Kreg
joinery? If you can email me If so, I wouldn't mind some additional
explanation. I have your proper email address and I've emailed you in
the past, but right now I still can't email you directly. If you can
email me, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks



Seriously All of those joints are pretty simple with the Domino. You
just have to keep your **** together so that you don't screw up. ;~)

If anyone is going to screw up it would be me but so far after making
dozens of these face frames, no problems.

The back face frames are simple, I cut the dado's and or groves first.
Then I cut the rabbets that receive the back panels and form the joints
between the rails and stiles. The trick here is to cut the mating tenon
after cutting the rabbet with out moving your fence. The spacing for
the width of the rabbit is the same for the tenon. To cut the mating
tenon to fit the rabbet I simply mount my miter gauge and use the fence
as the stop for the length. All you have to change is the height of the
cut and I use a scrap to sneak up on that.

The trick to the Domino tenons is to simply dry fit the face frame after
all cuts have been made and mark the domino locations just like you
would with biscuits.

I use the tight fit setting on the Domino to cut the mortises on all
pieces that get the mortise in the end of the board. I use the middle
width setting on all of the pieces that receive the mortise on the edge
of the board. This gives me wiggle room.

A hint here, the 5 mm bit affords you the best fit when you only have
the 1/2" left over area under the rabbit. Also remember to reference
the same face when that you marked. don't turn the piece over so that
you can see what you are doing. ;~) The trick here is to remember to
make the Domino plunge and additional 12 mm to the normal 15 mm when
using the 5 mm x 30 mm domino. so that setting should be 27 mm. this
lets the bit cut 15 mm deep although it had to extend 12mm to start with
to cleat the edge of the rabbet and or tenon.

Clear as mud so far? ;~)

Anyway you would think that this would be difficult but I have not yet
had a miss fit.


Now if you have not guessed yet the front face frames and back face
frames dado's/groves have to mirror each other where the bottom, top and
side panels fit. During the cutting operation for the back and front
face frames it is critical that the back face frame pieces that receive
the tenon to fit the rabbet be "1 inch" longer than the same front face
frame parts. Remember that the tenon is 1/2" longer on each end for the
back face frame.

Any way after every thing is glued up you will notice that that the
groove/dado in the bottom/top rails butt up against the outer stiles.
This dado needs to extend to the dado in the stile. Cutting that short
distance across the outer stile needs to be done free hand so to speak.
Not a problem on the front face frame as it is not easily seen when
you look in the cabinet. The back face frame is another matter
altogether, you see that cut when you look inside the cabinet.
The dado jig in the picture makes completing that dado simple and fast
for both front and back face frames.

I sent you an e-mail using the address you used last year so you should
be able to return my e-mail for details if you want.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:51:14 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet

With all the instructions you've given me, I'd have to use your back
face frames method a few times before I became comfortable with it.
But, thanks for the detail, I can see a lot of advantages to it.

I sent you an e-mail using the address you used last year so you should
be able to return my e-mail for details if you want.

Yes, I got it and tried to reply, but it bounced back like all the
others. Obviously, there's a problem in my system that I need to
rectify. Let me find it and fix it and then I'll email you.

On 11/28/2013 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:51:14 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet

With all the instructions you've given me, I'd have to use your back
face frames method a few times before I became comfortable with it.
But, thanks for the detail, I can see a lot of advantages to it.

I sent you an e-mail using the address you used last year so you should
be able to return my e-mail for details if you want.

Yes, I got it and tried to reply, but it bounced back like all the
others. Obviously, there's a problem in my system that I need to
rectify. Let me find it and fix it and then I'll email you.


Let me look a little deeper and make sure Yahoo has not put you on my
spam list.

On 11/28/2013 8:20 AM, Leon wrote:
On 11/28/2013 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:51:14 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet

With all the instructions you've given me, I'd have to use your back
face frames method a few times before I became comfortable with it.
But, thanks for the detail, I can see a lot of advantages to it.

I sent you an e-mail using the address you used last year so you should
be able to return my e-mail for details if you want.

Yes, I got it and tried to reply, but it bounced back like all the
others. Obviously, there's a problem in my system that I need to
rectify. Let me find it and fix it and then I'll email you.


Let me look a little deeper and make sure Yahoo has not put you on my
spam list.


What I meant to say check my mail bouncer. I don't see you there.