It was somewhere outside Barstow when "Andrew P"
wrote:

the a** r*ping I got here yesterday has been bugging me all day.

I'm not surprised ! It was well out of line.

My point was that your original post was unclear - there were two ways
to intepret it, for one the costing was reasonable, for the other it
wasn't. But if someone wants to feel so offended about you expecting
too much for too little, they should be carefult that that's really
what you'd meant.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...

There are a lot of pros on this group. Why shouldn't there be? The
major point seems to be, though, that as things progress you have
changed your expressed requirements considerably. With the MDF, you'd
have left someone unable to make the product you require, justifying
withholding payment, because you didn't explain how you actually wanted
it done, nor did you present options.

To be fair Charlie - isn't that the way it should go? A consumer knows what
he ultimately needs, does some due diligence in attempting to get part of
the way there and to be as demonstrative as he knows how to be (providing
drawings that to him are detailed and explanatory), and then comes forward
and submits his need, his due diligence effort and a proposed fee that he is
willing to pay based on market research. I really didn't see anything in
his posts that was demanding, was insistent, or otherwise less than
workable. In fact, I've seen quite the opposite. He's already acknowledged
some of the suggestions that have come up here - a good example being the
suggestion of inverting the mold. Isn't that what dialog is all about? I
know this - when I go to someone, prepared as best as I can possibly be, I
find that it is almost unavoidable that there is some dialog between that
person and myself with respect to alternative methods, etc. Things that I
just didn't think of, for any number of reasons. That's just the way it
should go. In this thread, that whole dynamic has been turned into some
sort of reason to dump on this guy. Shame.


Basically, no one on here is a mind reader. Explain what you want. Be
prepared to pay a reasonable price for it. A hundred bucks to cover
materials and two days' work to keep my wife from bugging me about
money for tools isn't my idea of a fair trade, especially when the
original specs are so screwed up I'd end up with just the experience
for my work.


It may well be that the two prices he mentioned in another post are the
absolute best prices he's going to be able to get, but at least from the
perspective of the researched prices, he did offer a reasonable price.
Perhaps not to all here, but again, this is primarily a hobbyist group and
to a lot of hobbyists, that could very conceivably be a very fair price.
Can't tear the guy up for asking.

At least one regular here took up the effort and took the design to product
in what I believe was roughly an hour's time. That's $100/hour. I'd wager
no one here knocks down that kind of money, even the pros. Double the
effort - it's still $50/hour. Still probably well within the expectations
of most shops and certainly for any amateur that's interested in that kind
of work. Any more time than that and some will probably drop off due to the
income/effort ratio, but again - in a hobbyist group, it still did not seem
like an unreasonable expectation on the surface, that there would be people
interested in the job.

I'd be interested in how well Morris' product fit the design specs provided.
That's really the ultimate qualifier here. I'm not interested in whether it
lead to a re-design, just in whether it met the spec. If it did, then
Morris proved what everyone else just talked about, and he proved it to be
different than what everyone else just talked about. If the design proved
to be flawed, I'd also be interested in whether the OP was standing by with
more funding to re-run a different design - in other words, was willing to
pay for each product, regardless of whether it was what he was *really*
after.

--

-Mike-

Andy Dingley wrote:
It was somewhere outside Barstow when "Andrew P"
wrote:
=20
=20
the a** r*ping I got here yesterday has been bugging me all day.
=20
=20
I'm not surprised ! It was well out of line.
=20
My point was that your original post was unclear - there were two ways
to intepret it, for one the costing was reasonable, for the other it
wasn't. =20


But if someone wants to feel so offended about you expecting
too much for too little, they should be carefult that that's really
what you'd meant.

Andy:

Indulge me please if you have time...

This discussion is worth carrying on because there is something to learn =

here... For all of us.

Neutral Tone here...

It's easy to forget that that clarification time costs money. Hobbyist=20
or professional...

Rarely does a person who wants something made want to pay for=20
clarification (IMO). That conclusion was reached over a lot of years.


So - I am curious Andy: Would you (try to) charge for the extra time=20
spent in clarifying on such a small job? Or would you "eat it"?

Remember the context of a small job. I have bid many large jobs. Yes I=20
know they can be worth some risk.


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

Mike Marlow wrote:

At least one regular here took up the effort and took the
design to product in what I believe was roughly an hour's
time.

I do that with a lot of stuff as a "learning exercise". It helps
me to hit the ground running when customers walk in and ask: "Can
you..." Dazzles the hell out of 'em when I can say that their
latest nightmare will be ready by lunchtime. (-8

I'd be interested in how well Morris' product fit the design
specs provided. That's really the ultimate qualifier here.
I'm not interested in whether it lead to a re-design, just in
whether it met the spec. If it did, then Morris proved what
everyone else just talked about, and he proved it to be
different than what everyone else just talked about.

I don't have either the taper bit or the 3/16" ball mill (to get
rid of the sharp angle between walls and floor) on hand, but if I
have time today I'll cut his prototype mold with straight bits
and shoot a photo. It'll "sorta" resemble Andrew's drawing, but
won't be the "real deal".

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Mike:

Please indulge me as well.

Neutral tone in my questions and comments I hope... If not make them=20
neutral in your mind as best you can..

Thank you.


Mike Marlow wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...
=20
There are a lot of pros on this group. Why shouldn't there be? The
major point seems to be, though, that as things progress you have
changed your expressed requirements considerably. With the MDF, you'd
have left someone unable to make the product you require, justifying
withholding payment, because you didn't explain how you actually wanted=

it done, nor did you present options.
=20
=20
To be fair Charlie - isn't that the way it should go? A consumer knows=
what
he ultimately needs, does some due diligence in attempting to get part =
of
the way there and to be as demonstrative as he knows how to be (providi=
ng
drawings that to him are detailed and explanatory), and then comes forw=
ard
and submits his need, his due diligence effort and a proposed fee that =
he is
willing to pay based on market research. =20

The proposed fee was based on automated manufacturing - which has a much =

lower cost structure. Clearly (IMO) that wasn't considered and was naive =

(in the neutral sense).

Many manufacturers I dealt with would not run certain machines because=20
they made their operation too expensive -- and so the machines sat idle=20
much of the time. They were needed to supply in overload situations --=20
but then the cost was blended. (Ok - fudged to cover up the loss.)

A hobbyist or professional woodworker has different equipment and a much =

higher cost structure that was not allowed for in the request. Nor was=20
the history of the request provided. Which would have been a vital clue=20
in how to proceed.


I really didn't see anything in
his posts that was demanding, was insistent, or otherwise less than
workable. =20

Given the context of the request and the "hidden info" that came out not =

sure I agree - but is that the central issue? To me anything less than=20
full disclosure in these situations wastes a lot of time. And it did...

In fact, I've seen quite the opposite. He's already acknowledged
some of the suggestions that have come up here - a good example being t=
he
suggestion of inverting the mold. =20

As I pointed out earlier -- that was free advice. The client did not pay =

for value received. Is that fair? Would he have paid a hobbyist the true =

value to make his idea workable. Doesn't seem reasonable to me...=20
Reasonable in the sense that the charges would/should have been much=20
greater than the perceived value. This is not a slight -- just an=20
observation I have made in hundreds of similar situations.

Isn't that what dialog is all about? I
know this - when I go to someone, prepared as best as I can possibly be=
, I
find that it is almost unavoidable that there is some dialog between th=
at
person and myself with respect to alternative methods, etc. =20

Dialog -- or design expertise? :-)

Do you pay? Is there an ongoing relationship that make sit worth while=20
to both of you? Is it a "one-off" situation such as this. Are the=20
situations comparable?

Things that I
just didn't think of, for any number of reasons. That's just the way i=
t
should go. In this thread, that whole dynamic has been turned into som=
e
sort of reason to dump on this guy. Shame.

Not really. Misunderstandings on both sides -- and the client chose a=20
public venue. Their call. Probably a bad call - but their call and the=20
way they asked the questions.

Had I know they had gotten a price structure from an automated=20
manufacturer I would have recognized the issue immediately. (I hope or I =

would have been ashamed.) That information was withheld. Should I have=20
spotted it? Maybe -- as those sorts of drawings can be made with a $49=20
package -- maybe not.


=20
Basically, no one on here is a mind reader. Explain what you want. Be
prepared to pay a reasonable price for it. A hundred bucks to cover
materials and two days' work to keep my wife from bugging me about
money for tools isn't my idea of a fair trade, especially when the
original specs are so screwed up I'd end up with just the experience
for my work.

=20
=20
It may well be that the two prices he mentioned in another post are the=

absolute best prices he's going to be able to get, but at least from th=
e
perspective of the researched prices, he did offer a reasonable price.

To an automated manufacturer -- yes. Not by the techniques used by most=20
people in this group. Misstated requirements -- not our problem. A=20
problem -- Yes! Not ours. But had an under-equipped person done this it=20
would have been a serious problem for them. Thank good for little=20
mercies -- and Morris -- and Tom knowing who could do what... :-)


Perhaps not to all here, but again, this is primarily a hobbyist group =
and
to a lot of hobbyists, that could very conceivably be a very fair price=
=2E
Can't tear the guy up for asking.
=20


Only if you don't know your own costs -- or are content to subsidize=20
someone's business effort (for whatever reason). IMO - and this can be=20
easily calculated. So it need not be debated -- since it is different=20
for all our shops.



At least one regular here took up the effort and took the design to pro=
duct
in what I believe was roughly an hour's time. =20


Using the original methods priced. And now hopefully with a different=20
design and approach -- but either way it is beyond us now.

That's $100/hour. I'd wager
no one here knocks down that kind of money, even the pros. =20

I would have questioned the price even with the CNC machine. The=20
client's price was not economic. And I suspect there is at least some=20
extra costs now.

Double the
effort - it's still $50/hour. =20

For that kind of machinery? Hmm -- would have to look at the cost=20
structure of the shop that did it -- and it is not my business -- in=20
either sense. And I was used to routinely doing those estimates and=20
costs -- and I would not dare make the conclusion that you did. Maybe=20
you have more experience -- I simply don't know and don't care for a=20
****ing match -- because I don't know peoples numbers and would make=20
erroneous conclusions and estimates. Maybe you would be willing to make=20
a general comment as to whether you are guessing or have experience in=20
these types of job shop or manufacturing estimates. Maybe somebody with=20
a great deal of experience in job shop would be willing to give a second =

opinion -- and I would like to hear it.


Still probably well within the expectations
of most shops and certainly for any amateur that's interested in that k=
ind
of work. =20

IMO you are wrong. Difficult without CNC and particularly with MDF if=20
you want a "smooth" mold. But then the spec for the required smoothness=20
wasn't given -- was it? So either of us could be right. And if the mold=20
is not smooth enough is that a justification fro withholding payment --=20
based on the non-spec? that was one of the issues that bothered me.

Any more time than that and some will probably drop off due to the
income/effort ratio, but again - in a hobbyist group, it still did not =
seem
like an unreasonable expectation on the surface, that there would be pe=
ople
interested in the job.

Only because the job was badly specced -- but then people picked up on it=
=2E

IMO -- it was unreasonable. I was looking at it from a=20
hobbyist/professional woodworker perspective. Did not make sense with my =

cost structure. And I can work pretty cheap if I want to.

The risk factors bothered me most. Bad specs have high risk.

Even with CNC it has proved be "high risk" for the money offered. (IMO)

I'd be interested in how well Morris' product fit the design specs prov=
ided.

Easily IMO -- he seems very competent -- but then they were the wrong=20
specs IMO. :-)

That's really the ultimate qualifier here. =20

Don't agree - but that's an opinion.

I'm not interested in whether it
lead to a re-design, just in whether it met the spec. =20

To me that is the only issue -- the re-design. But I was looking at the=20
difficulty of producing something workable -- not just meeting the spec. =

A bad habit I guess.

People don't pay for things that don't work. they assume a credible=20
supplier will "make it right" and fix a bad design. Not fair -- but that =

is experience. (Yes it is anecdotal -- I know) :-)

If it did, then
Morris proved what everyone else just talked about, and he proved it to=
be
different than what everyone else just talked about. =20

Interesting conclusion. Maybe we should have a long chat in a bar or=20
coffee house one day. After Morris reports -- if he is allowed to...

If the design proved
to be flawed, I'd also be interested in whether the OP was standing by =
with
more funding to re-run a different design - in other words, was willing=
to
pay for each product, regardless of whether it was what he was *really*=

after.
=20

That is the ultimate question I agree. Total agreement here -- are both=20
parties willing stand behind the project and make it workable at a=20
_mutually_ acceptable cost.


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

"WillR" wrote in message
.. .

It's easy to forget that that clarification time costs money. Hobbyist
or professional...

Rarely does a person who wants something made want to pay for
clarification (IMO). That conclusion was reached over a lot of years.


So - I am curious Andy: Would you (try to) charge for the extra time
spent in clarifying on such a small job? Or would you "eat it"?

Remember the context of a small job. I have bid many large jobs. Yes I
know they can be worth some risk.



Hey Will - can I chime in? If so, then IMHO, that clarification time is
part of overhead. I personally feel that it's reasonable, especially for
custom work.

BTW - if the answer to my question was "no", then kindly disregard the above
statements.
--

-Mike-

It was somewhere outside Barstow when WillR
wrote:

So - I am curious Andy: Would you (try to) charge for the extra time
spent in clarifying on such a small job? Or would you "eat it"?

Oh, I'd eat it - quite definitely. You have to factor that into your
overheads for sure, so it all adds to the cost. However trying to
_track_ the amount of this time would easily add up to even more
effort.

Mike Marlow wrote:
"WillR" wrote in message
.. .
=20
=20
It's easy to forget that that clarification time costs money. Hobbyist
or professional...
=20
=20
Rarely does a person who wants something made want to pay for
clarification (IMO). That conclusion was reached over a lot of years.
=20
=20
=20
So - I am curious Andy: Would you (try to) charge for the extra time
spent in clarifying on such a small job? Or would you "eat it"?
=20
=20
Remember the context of a small job. I have bid many large jobs. Yes I
know they can be worth some risk.
=20
=20
=20
=20
Hey Will - can I chime in? If so, then IMHO, that clarification time i=
s
part of overhead. I personally feel that it's reasonable, especially f=
or
custom work.
=20


No problem.


IMHO - each job gets assigned overhead. That's always the way it was=20
looked at by the manufacturing shops (custom shops, programming shops=20
etc.) I worked in/dealt with.... I still deal with engineers on (large)=20
foreign projects. I stay out of most things but I am usually clued in as =

to the charge structure as a courtesy (only) -- not as a necessity.=20
(i.e. it's none of my business -- but they don't want comments or=20
questions at the wrong time. LOL)

Is that reasonable IYO?

Many shops assign an overhead factor based on the job -- others do it=20
generally.

Suspect that you are hinting it should be absorbed in "the general cost=20
of doing business" -- but not sure. I was disabused of that notion long=20
ago: a. By cost accountants; b. By losing money on small jobs.

Feel free to comment. Would like to hear your opinion if I am close --=20
or correct me of any misunderstanding.

I have learned quite a bit about how people do business in WW from this=20
discussion. Not really sure where I stand yet. But I am leaning towards=20
the conservative costing approach I learned in the past -- so yes I=20
think (guess) you made some conclusions -- and were right if so.

=2E.And, I clearly feel that Larry J. was right in his original=20
assessment... And made the same one - just didn't comment first cause I=20
wanted to see the knowledge level in the group. It is impressive. (Not=20
that I agree with everyone on everything.)

Thanks.


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

Andy Dingley wrote:
It was somewhere outside Barstow when WillR
wrote:
=20
=20
So - I am curious Andy: Would you (try to) charge for the extra time=20
spent in clarifying on such a small job? Or would you "eat it"?
=20
=20
Oh, I'd eat it - quite definitely. You have to factor that into your
overheads for sure, so it all adds to the cost. However trying to
_track_ the amount of this time would easily add up to even more
effort.
=20

Do you add a portion of the overhead to each job as a matter of course?

I think that eating it would be a losing proposition -- and clearly=20
that's why I commented.

My (just) previous post makes that clear -- how my thinking runs.

IMO - not factoring in overhead (general or specific) is a disaster in=20
the making unless this is to gain a long term larger scale client or a=20
general class of business. In this case - except for Morris (maybe!) --=20
it would IMO be a losing proposition. And even then I have learned to be =

cautious and question my own motives. (The clients are usually clear...=20
superior work at a low price.)

Maybe I'm older than I realized and have been had too many times --=20
through exactly that thinking -- "throw it in overhead". Comment - not=20
criticism -- as clearly I have done this and the past an now believe I=20
was wrong.

Thanks for the thoughts...

Any more are welcome.


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

"WillR" wrote in message
.. .
Mike:

Please indulge me as well.

But, of course...

Neutral tone in my questions and comments I hope... If not make them
neutral in your mind as best you can..

Easy to do Will. I've watched you give this your best shot at neutrality
over the past day. Makes it easy to read in that context.


snippage of a bunch of Will and Mike agreeing to disagree on some things,
being not so far apart on some things, and otherwise well presented opinions
that don't need to be objected to...


If it did, then
Morris proved what everyone else just talked about, and he proved it to
be
different than what everyone else just talked about.

Interesting conclusion. Maybe we should have a long chat in a bar or
coffee house one day. After Morris reports -- if he is allowed to...

Now that's something I can certainly step up to. Don't drink, but they do
serve cokes in bars and I drink barrels of coffee a day, so I'm good with
either idea...

If the design proved
to be flawed, I'd also be interested in whether the OP was standing by
with
more funding to re-run a different design - in other words, was willing
to
pay for each product, regardless of whether it was what he was *really*
after.


That is the ultimate question I agree. Total agreement here -- are both
parties willing stand behind the project and make it workable at a
_mutually_ acceptable cost.

And I'll admit, that I read into the tone that I perceived in the OP's post
that he would. That's a big assumption and one that would need to be
determined up front, but I didn't get the first impression that he was
looking for some F*ck you deal out of the relationship.


--

-Mike-

It was somewhere outside Barstow when WillR
wrote:

IMHO - each job gets assigned overhead.

You can't assign overheads - that's the point, they're the bit that's
not assignable, because you either have to pay it anyway (rent) or you
can't track where it went (who finished the sandpaper?). Your jobs
have to be sufficiently profitable in total to allow you to pay for
overheads out of the general budget. Not assigning them doesn't mean
that you have to run at a loss.

It was somewhere outside Barstow when WillR
wrote:

IMHO - each job gets assigned overhead. That's always the way it was=20
looked at by the manufacturing shops (custom shops, programming shops=20
etc.) I worked in/dealt with....

IMHE, only the ones being taken over by ****wit MBAs who'd spend $100
to track a single screw.

This works for Ford. A million screws is big money. But on the scale
of Ford you don't need to have overheads. Your volume is large and
predictable, so you can track plant utilisation accurately and thus
assign even things like rent and wear on the carpets. Overheads turn
into per-item costs.

In a jobbing shop though, you can't do this. A smallwaterjet shop
with one expensive machine finds it hard to do, because they can't
predict utilisation perfectly. For a typical woodworking shop, with
two guys and half-a-dozen machines, it's impossible. Will you be using
the saw or the moulder tomorrow ? Which project column should I book
the sharpening charges to ?

"WillR" wrote in message
...


Suspect that you are hinting it should be absorbed in "the general cost
of doing business" -- but not sure. I was disabused of that notion long
ago: a. By cost accountants; b. By losing money on small jobs.

Suspision confirmed - but only because the consultative effort was small.


I have learned quite a bit about how people do business in WW from this
discussion. Not really sure where I stand yet. But I am leaning towards
the conservative costing approach I learned in the past -- so yes I
think (guess) you made some conclusions -- and were right if so.

I lean toward what you are referring to as the conservative approach when I
contract to to things as well. No matter whether it's painting a car,
building something, repairing something, etc. One only has to operate in an
environment where consumables prevail, for a short time to develop a genuine
understanding of overhead. Having said that, there is the other side of me
that represents my value add, which is my expertise or my experience or even
my sense of "another way". It's that side of me that is free to say "have
you considered this instead?". That value add is, for me, overhead in that
it's not priced out in the project. It is something I expect to do and it's
something I believe customers can expect of me. It's something that I would
not think to charge for. It's a small and simple up front engagement that
hopes to ensure that the project will succeed and both parties will be
satisfied in just one iteration of the job.


--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
"WillR" wrote in message
.. .
=20
Mike:
=20
=20
Please indulge me as well.
=20
=20
But, of course...
=20
=20
Neutral tone in my questions and comments I hope... If not make them
neutral in your mind as best you can..
=20


=20
Easy to do Will. I've watched you give this your best shot at neutrali=
ty
over the past day. Makes it easy to read in that context.

Ah well.. everybody gets a shot now and then. LOL

Good one.


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

"WillR" wrote in message
...
Andy Dingley wrote:
It was somewhere outside Barstow when WillR
wrote:


So - I am curious Andy: Would you (try to) charge for the extra time
spent in clarifying on such a small job? Or would you "eat it"?


Oh, I'd eat it - quite definitely. You have to factor that into your
overheads for sure, so it all adds to the cost. However trying to
_track_ the amount of this time would easily add up to even more
effort.


Do you add a portion of the overhead to each job as a matter of course?

I think that eating it would be a losing proposition -- and clearly
that's why I commented.

This is where the distinction between hobbyist and production shop become
operative. For a large percentage of hobbyists, $100 for an hour or two of
work that is not so different from what they do every night for free, is a
pretty good deal. For a production shop, it's a whole different issue. The
hobbyist will often feel he learned something from the exercise, or feel
good about having done a paying job, or maybe expand his/her skills by
trying something they've never done before. But - the important point is,
the hobbyist is by definition, not in it for profit. He's in it for the fun
of it. Any pay he receives is gravy to him. Losing proposition? Yeah,
maybe, by a measured standard, but if hobbyists were to measure their
profitability, we'd all have to quit our hobby.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
"WillR" wrote in message
...
=20
=20
=20
Suspect that you are hinting it should be absorbed in "the general cost=

of doing business" -- but not sure. I was disabused of that notion long=

ago: a. By cost accountants; b. By losing money on small jobs.
=20
=20
Suspision confirmed - but only because the consultative effort was smal=
l.
=20
=20
=20
I have learned quite a bit about how people do business in WW from this=

discussion. Not really sure where I stand yet. But I am leaning towards=

the conservative costing approach I learned in the past -- so yes I
think (guess) you made some conclusions -- and were right if so.
=20
=20
I lean toward what you are referring to as the conservative approach wh=
en I
contract to to things as well. No matter whether it's painting a car,
building something, repairing something, etc. One only has to operate =
in an
environment where consumables prevail, for a short time to develop a ge=
nuine
understanding of overhead. Having said that, there is the other side o=
f me
that represents my value add, which is my expertise or my experience or=
even
my sense of "another way". It's that side of me that is free to say "h=
ave
you considered this instead?". That value add is, for me, overhead in =
that
it's not priced out in the project. It is something I expect to do and=
it's
something I believe customers can expect of me. It's something that I =
would
not think to charge for. It's a small and simple up front engagement t=
hat
hopes to ensure that the project will succeed and both parties will be
satisfied in just one iteration of the job.
=20
=20


Fair enough. We're not that far apart I guess.

Good enough answer for me.



--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

Andy Dingley wrote:
It was somewhere outside Barstow=20

(Toronto actually - but what the heck...) :-)

when WillR
wrote:
=20
=20
IMHO - each job gets assigned overhead. That's always the way it was=3D=
20
looked at by the manufacturing shops (custom shops, programming shops=3D=
20
etc.) I worked in/dealt with....=20
=20
=20
IMHE, only the ones being taken over by ****wit MBAs who'd spend $100
to track a single screw.

I never said anything about MBA's -- you did. (Just in case any crazed=20
MBA's with guns are reading this.) Now I gotta clean my screen cause I=20
spit all over it... Notice I carefully avoided comment on useless=20
****wit MBA types. But wasn't thinking of tracking single screws --=20
except as noted by you. Simply referred to overhead... And you have=20
answered well so you don't need to re-comment unless you would like=20
to... (But loved your "way with words".)

But I think I understand your point - so that's OK -- tend to agree that =

trivial items should be tracked only on large jobs. The the only issue=20
becomes the "cut-off point" -- which is by nature quite debatable.

(And no -- no MBA here)

This works for Ford. A million screws is big money. But on the scale
of Ford you don't need to have overheads. Your volume is large and
predictable, so you can track plant utilisation accurately and thus
assign even things like rent and wear on the carpets. Overheads turn
into per-item costs.
Easy=20

Agreed. Easier to do at that level. Agreed.


In a jobbing shop though, you can't do this. A smallwaterjet shop
with one expensive machine finds it hard to do, because they can't
predict utilisation perfectly. For a typical woodworking shop, with
two guys and half-a-dozen machines, it's impossible. Will you be using
the saw or the moulder tomorrow ? Which project column should I book
the sharpening charges to ?
=20

Created system that do this data collection -- so just different=20
experience I guess.

You can't predict utilization better than 80% even in large shops (not=20
in any industries I saw anyway) -- you can only observe (what happened)=20
with close to 100% accuracy. This requires closed loop (adaptive)=20
systems - which should be discussed somewhere else.

Can't argue with your reasoning though if the shop isn't equipped to do=20
the data collection you are correct. IMO. (and since most probably don't.=
=2E.)

Understood. Appreciate the comments. Promise not to get an MBA.


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

Mike Marlow wrote:

=20
This is where the distinction between hobbyist and production shop beco=
me
operative. For a large percentage of hobbyists, $100 for an hour or tw=
o of
work that is not so different from what they do every night for free, i=
s a
pretty good deal. For a production shop, it's a whole different issue.=
=20

Agreed

The
hobbyist will often feel he learned something from the exercise, or fee=
l
good about having done a paying job, or maybe expand his/her skills by
trying something they've never done before. =20

Agreed

But - the important point is,
the hobbyist is by definition, not in it for profit. He's in it for th=
e fun
of it. Any pay he receives is gravy to him. Losing proposition? Yeah=
,
maybe, by a measured standard, but if hobbyists were to measure their
profitability, we'd all have to quit our hobby.
=20


Agreed. Knitting it is. :-)



--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

Mike Marlow wrote:

but I didn't get the first impression that he was
looking for some F*ck you deal out of the relationship.
=20
=20

Looks like this is the fundamental issue .

(Not trying to get you out of context -- I believe you nailed the=20
fundamental issue -- so am just trying to isolate it.)

Guess some of us decided that he was -- and that "the why" did not matter=
=2E..

The "Why" could have been intent or naivety or some combination.

In my experience the result is usually the same -- supplier takes the=20
hit if the job goes bad or takes too much work.

Other people likely have had the same experience and had the same=20
thoughts - rightly or wrongly. (Other people may be better judges of=20
character or intent...)

Guess the only debate should be on whether you allow the benefit of the=20
doubt on these... With the problem being that if you "give" you must=20
commit to spending the time and money to educate. (Been had before by=20
people playing the sincere naif...)

Don't think it's worth my time debating this as I never did figure out=20
the right answer before (I gave) and not likely to now. (Now I don't give=
=2E)

Wish I had some wisdom to offer -- but I don't since I never got it=20
right before and am unlikely to in the future any further comment from=20
me would likely (almost certainly) be pointless.

Feel free to offer any wisdom you have...


And your shot was right on -- I was anything but neutral. See above.

Really appreciate your time and thoughts. Best wishes.

Hope everyone learned something or this was pointless. :-)

--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

It was somewhere outside Barstow when "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

$100 for an hour or two of work

If you can't run a joinery shop, all in, for under $50/hour you're
just doing it wrong.

"WillR" wrote in message
.. .
Mike Marlow wrote:
"WillR" wrote in message
.. .

Mike:


Please indulge me as well.


But, of course...


Neutral tone in my questions and comments I hope... If not make them
neutral in your mind as best you can..




Easy to do Will. I've watched you give this your best shot at neutrality
over the past day. Makes it easy to read in that context.

Ah well.. everybody gets a shot now and then. LOL

Good one.


No - I was trying to acknowledge your efforts at neutral tone and state that
I had indeed observed those efforts, so it would be easy for me to embrace
that and put forward a neutral tone as well. I was trying to be
complimentary. Sorry if it did not come across that way.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
"WillR" wrote in message
.. .
Mike Marlow wrote:
=20
"WillR" wrote in message
...


Mike:


Please indulge me as well.


But, of course...



Neutral tone in my questions and comments I hope... If not make them
neutral in your mind as best you can..

=20
=20
Easy to do Will. I've watched you give this your best shot at neutrali=
ty
over the past day. Makes it easy to read in that context.
=20
=20
Ah well.. everybody gets a shot now and then. LOL
=20
Good one.
=20
=20
No - I was trying to acknowledge your efforts at neutral tone and state=
that
I had indeed observed those efforts, so it would be easy for me to embr=
ace
that and put forward a neutral tone as well. I was trying to be
complimentary. Sorry if it did not come across that way.
=20

Don't apologize. My mistake. But I really did think...

Anyway -- I do respect the smarts I see on this group. You never know=20
here when you are having your leg pulled -- and I probably did deserve a =

shot and assumed... Guess I'll shut up now. :-)

I wasn't sure actually and hence should have "shut up". LOL

Thank you for the tolerance. Respect your intelligence and=20
thoughtfulness -- even if and when in complete disagreement. And that=20
_is_ a sincere complement -- same to Andy Dingley -- and a few others..



--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:

It was somewhere outside Barstow when WillR
wrote:

IMHO - each job gets assigned overhead.

You can't assign overheads - that's the point, they're the bit that's
not assignable, because you either have to pay it anyway (rent) or you
can't track where it went (who finished the sandpaper?). Your jobs
have to be sufficiently profitable in total to allow you to pay for
overheads out of the general budget. Not assigning them doesn't mean
that you have to run at a loss.

Bingo!

In article .com,
"Andrew P" wrote:

[snipperectomized]

A hundred bucks can be worth a lot
more than a hundred bucks if you can tell your wife that you made a
hundred bucks carving wood and she gets off your back (for even one
day!) about buying toys for your woodshop. No?

No.
My personal structure does not fit that bill, but you had no way of
knowing. You jumped to a conclusion. So did I. I thought "here we go
again, another schmuck looking for a freebie/cheepie/to take advantage.."
Now that I have read more of who you are, it has become evident that I
was wrong to draw that conclusion and for that I apologize.

Some got caught up in the 'pile-on'. **** happens. It has happened to
me... as the recipient..so you dust yourself off, wash your hands in
acetone and go on.
I don't think any of it was 'mean' as such...just out of place.
Hindsight has 20-20 vision, eh?

I sincerely HAD NO
IDEA that this group was populated by professional pattern makers,
engineers, and woodworkers. I am so sincerely sorry for causing so
much strife in this newsgroup. I guess I should have known better and
I'm sorry I didn't. I admire your craft to the fullest. I didn't know
I would insult you; and I *certainly* didn't mean to.

A lot of what you felt as strife, is just poking fun..but sometimes that
poking gets a little out of hand, and on the net nobody knows you're a
dog, as the saying goes. Humour is very difficult to grasp sometimes
without all the smirks, tongues-in-cheeks, winks, shrugs and all those
visual indicators. I have had to explain this before, but if you're not
sure if I'm kidding, I am...


I would also
like to thank Mike Marlow for being reasonable.

He seems like a reasonable bloke.

Now, WillR, on the other hand, you have to watch out for. G


0¿-
˜

Rob

Andy Dingley wrote:
It was somewhere outside Barstow when WillR
wrote:
=20
=20
IMHO - each job gets assigned overhead.=20
=20
=20
You can't assign overheads - that's the point, they're the bit that's
not assignable, because you either have to pay it anyway (rent) or you
can't track where it went (who finished the sandpaper?). =20

Well as I said -- in some systems each job gets a percentage of the=20
general overhead, and yes it is often a BS number -- but a reminder that =

each job must pull it's own weight.

Lets assume a shop that is earning revenue and a profit. From my POV if=20
you take the overhead (the unassignable costs in your terminology) and=20
take a job as a percentage of the revenue and then add the same=20
percentage of the overhead to the job as a cost... If the job doesn't=20
still make money you have to examine your motivation for taking the=20
work. I do _not_ mean -- don't take the work. I mean simply that you=20
_do_ have to look at your motivation to take the work and see if it=20
makes sense -- as in -- does it fit in with your plans and goals, give=20
you access to new and profitable markets. Even saying to yourself -- I=20
can lose money on this one -- I am doing it because I am bored is OK in=20
my book. Based on the assumption at the beginning of the paragraph.

Even had that done to me on contracts I was letting -- where a agreed=20
upon percentage (of the job labour and materials) was paid in addition=20
as overhead. It may have been a method for the FW MBA's to justify their =

existence -- but it was done. So I had to grin and just look at it as a=20
percentage of the job and make a decision whether the bid was economic.

I did not even consider it "fair" or "unfair". It was just the way it=20
was -- and if I wanted that "team" -- those were the rules.

There was a logic to it -- it did encourage everyone not to get=20
extravagant... or something -- I guess.

Your jobs
have to be sufficiently profitable in total to allow you to pay for
overheads out of the general budget. =20

Can't argue with that... Good a way as any to look at it. See above.


Not assigning them doesn't mean
that you have to run at a loss.

Hope I never implied that -- but if I did consider it retracted.

Not arguing with what you think -- just trying to present another way of =

looking at it.

If your bank balance is good, and your cash flow is good -- as I think=20
you implied -- who gives a s**t about the overhead -- it must be OK and=20
a few risks are worth taking. If that's what you implied I am good with=20
that. :-)


Really appreciate the time and the comments.

--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

Robatoy wrote:
In article .com,
"Andrew P" wrote:
=20
[snipperectomized]
=20
=20
A hundred bucks can be worth a lot
more than a hundred bucks if you can tell your wife that you made a
hundred bucks carving wood and she gets off your back (for even one
day!) about buying toys for your woodshop. No?
=20
=20
No.



My personal structure does not fit that bill, but you had no way of=20
knowing.=20

Nor mine.


You jumped to a conclusion. So did I. I thought "here we go=20
again, another schmuck looking for a freebie/cheepie/to take advantage.=
=2E"
Now that I have read more of who you are, it has become evident that I=
=20
was wrong to draw that conclusion and for that I apologize.=20
=20

Didn't we all. :-(


Some got caught up in the 'pile-on'. **** happens. It has happened to=20
me... as the recipient..so you dust yourself off, wash your hands in=20
acetone and go on.
I don't think any of it was 'mean' as such...just out of place.
Hindsight has 20-20 vision, eh?
=20

well said.

=20
I sincerely HAD NO
IDEA that this group was populated by professional pattern makers,
engineers, and woodworkers. I am so sincerely sorry for causing so
much strife in this newsgroup. I guess I should have known better and
I'm sorry I didn't. I admire your craft to the fullest. I didn't know=

I would insult you; and I *certainly* didn't mean to. =20
=20
=20
A lot of what you felt as strife, is just poking fun..but sometimes tha=
t=20
poking gets a little out of hand, and on the net nobody knows you're a =

dog, as the saying goes. Humour is very difficult to grasp sometimes=20
without all the smirks, tongues-in-cheeks, winks, shrugs and all those =

visual indicators. I have had to explain this before, but if you're not=
=20
sure if I'm kidding, I am...=20
=20

Hmmm. Take your word on this one? Gimme a few hours to mull it over. :-)

=20
=20
I would also
like to thank Mike Marlow for being reasonable.
=20
=20
He seems like a reasonable bloke.

Careful -- it may be a carefully crafted facade. I have never found=20
anyone that reasonable before - it has to be a cruel trick and I see he=20
caught you too. LOL

Andy Dingley is just as bad.... :-)


=20
Now, WillR, on the other hand, you have to watch out for. G

Sheesh - can't trust anybody these days they'll turn on yah for anything.=



=20
=20
0=BF-
=98
=20
Rob

As an aside -- note that what he is doing is an attempt to automate a=20
food production step. Interesting idea coming from a chef -- that he=20
understands automation and how to alter cost structures. ...And how you =

can take a manual operation and bring it into a system -- kinda like=20
manufacturing. Pretty sharp I think. I guess he does understand these=20
processes.

;-)

(But then my daughter has worked in large kitchens in her student years=20
and she saw the idea...)



--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

Sadly, there's never been /any/ afternoon delight in my shop. )-:

Well, no WONDER you got the job done so fast! :-)

In article ,
Morris Dovey wrote:


Rob...

It's possible to find used machines that cost less than a new
Unisaw. I built my own vacuum clamping setup for less than $100
and have a page on my web site that shows how it can be done on
the cheap. I also have a web page showing how a good dust
collection system can be built inexpensively for a CNC router
(using the HF $150 DC unit and two LV separator lids).

I won't need a vacuum unit like this?
http://www.aerzen.ca/images/images1/...werenlarge.jpg


You're welcome to browse around my web site. There're a fair
number of pictures showing everything from setting one up to
holding work while routing - there're pictures of some of the
more interesting possibilities for joinery and even a (very
small) sampling of CNC software.

I have visited and I am intrigued.

Those venture-type low volume vacuum generators that are mounted inside
my Par-a-lign vacuum clamps, can they be had separately?
http://monumenttoolworks.com/pages/parallign.htm
Small pump source? I have googled myself into tizzy, just can't make
neither heads nor tails from the specs. I seem to get stuck in the
medical research equipment pages.

In article ,
WillR wrote:

Andy Dingley is just as bad.... :-)

He's English, you know....

Robatoy wrote:
In article ,
WillR wrote:
=20
=20
Andy Dingley is just as bad.... :-)
=20
=20

He's English, you know....

Mmm yes I was aware of that "problem" -- did not wish to embarrass him=20
by making a point of it old chap..

You've outed me again. This must stop! :-)

Another snifter of Don Pedro and I shall be fine.

--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

Morris Dovey wrote:

I don't have either the taper bit or the 3/16" ball mill (to
get rid of the sharp angle between walls and floor) on hand,
but if I have time today I'll cut his prototype mold with
straight bits and shoot a photo. It'll "sorta" resemble
Andrew's drawing, but won't be the "real deal".

Just before 5 I finally had time to slap a piece of MDF in the
'Bot and try my little part program. The mold took 10:10
(min:sec) to cut and has two errors:

[1] I displaced the taper cut by 1/16" up and right.
[2] I didn't displace the right cut-off by a tool radius.

Otherwise the part came out pretty much as expected. I used a
1/4" instead of 1/2" down spiral to hog out the cavity because
the 1/2" bit would leave an uncut area in the corners of the
bottom. When I switched to 1/4" bit I also switched from one to
two passes to cut down to the 1/2" depth (which would have been a
single pass with the 1/2" bit).

There's a sketch and photo on A.B.P.W - the ridge around the
bottom of the cavity would have been converted to a fillet if I'd
had a 3/16" ball end cutter.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Robatoy wrote:

In article , Morris Dovey
wrote:

It's possible to find used machines that cost less than a
new Unisaw. I built my own vacuum clamping setup for less
than $100 and have a page on my web site that shows how it
can be done on the cheap. I also have a web page showing how
a good dust collection system can be built inexpensively for
a CNC router (using the HF $150 DC unit and two LV separator
lids).

I won't need a vacuum unit like this?
http://www.aerzen.ca/images/images1/...werenlarge.jpg

One of my fellow ShopBotters uses a 15hp vacuum pump. I use the
input side of a (free!) recycled refrigerator compressor and have
been happy with the job it does.

Those venture-type low volume vacuum generators that are
mounted inside my Par-a-lign vacuum clamps, can they be had
separately?

Yes. I've seen 'em advertized (but can't remember where.) I'll
keep my eyes peeled...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Just before 5 I finally had time to slap a piece of MDF in the
'Bot and try my little part program. The mold took 10:10
(min:sec) to cut and has two errors:


Thanks for posting the follow-up Morris. I was quite interested in how
you'd make out.

--

-Mike-

Oh for Christmas sake, give it a rest!! All of you have made your point
(several times!).

A hundred bucks can be worth a lot
more than a hundred bucks if you can tell your wife that you made a
hundred bucks carving wood and she gets off your back (for even one
day!) about buying toys for your woodshop. No?

No.
My personal structure does not fit that bill, but you had no way of
knowing. You jumped to a conclusion. So did I. I thought "here we go
again, another schmuck looking for a freebie/cheepie/to take advantage.."
Now that I have read more of who you are, it has become evident that I
was wrong to draw that conclusion and for that I apologize.

Some got caught up in the 'pile-on'. **** happens. It has happened to
me... as the recipient..so you dust yourself off, wash your hands in
acetone and go on.
I don't think any of it was 'mean' as such...just out of place.
Hindsight has 20-20 vision, eh?

WillR wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:

The risk factors bothered me most. Bad specs have high risk.

Even with CNC it has proved be "high risk" for the money
offered. (IMO)

I'd be interested in how well Morris' product fit the design
specs provided.

Easily IMO -- he seems very competent -- but then they were
the wrong specs IMO. :-)

That's really the ultimate qualifier here.

Actually, specs seem to (at least almost) always be flawed in one
way or another - no matter whether you're cutting and pasting
Verilog blocks or MDF blocks.

Real competency appears to lie in being able to emerge from the
manure pile smelling like roses. In more formal terms, gaining
sufficient understanding of the project's real needs to produce
something that satisfies them (and perhaps helping to modify the
spec along the way, so that everyone learns.)

IMO, agreeing to participate in any development effort includes
agreement to participate in debugging the specs - because there
isn't any other way that works. People who sidetrack into issues
of rightness and wrongness /subtract/ from constructive effort.

I'm not interested in whether it lead to a re-design, just
in whether it met the spec.

To me that is the only issue -- the re-design. But I was
looking at the difficulty of producing something workable --
not just meeting the spec. A bad habit I guess.

FWIW, in so far as it was intended to, it meets the spec. I
produced a reject on the first try, corrected the software part
program, and got a good part on the second try. Normally I don't
photograph and show the contents of the scrap bin; but did this
time so that I could post before servers began pruning the thread.

If the work had been done for a customer and if the part that met
the spec had not been what was needed, both the customer and I
would have decisions to make about what came next.

People don't pay for things that don't work. they assume a
credible supplier will "make it right" and fix a bad design.
Not fair -- but that is experience. (Yes it is anecdotal -- I
know) :-)

Glad you put the smiley there, because people always pay for
things that don't work. They pay in time, in effort, in
credibility, in goodwill, and all of these things have real
value. Perhaps because I've been lucky, my customers have always
paid me - or perhaps it's because I've taken pains to think and
speak of myself and my customer as co-producers of /our/ product.

If it did, then Morris proved what everyone else just talked
about, and he proved it to be different than what everyone
else just talked about.

Well - yes and no. "Yes" because I have atypical shop
capabilities and in typical shops there'd have been a need for a
fair amount of careful planning and fixture/jig design and
fabrication before a part could be produced; and "no" because
most people weren't thinking in terms of CNC, where a lot of the
jigs/fixtures/templates are nothing more than text files and
software on a computer.

Interesting conclusion. Maybe we should have a long chat in a
bar or coffee house one day. After Morris reports -- if he is
allowed to...

'S hard to shut me up. (-:

I'd like to make a motion that we meet in my shop (I-80 exit 110
in Iowa - map on web site) for coffee.

A lot of this discussion has been philosophical (isn't philosophy
an important part of woodworking?) The value of a job isn't
really just man/machine hours or "what the market will bear" - as
Patriarch, Tom Watson, and others here remind us from time to time.

If the design proved to be flawed, I'd also be interested in
whether the OP was standing by with more funding to re-run a
different design - in other words, was willing to pay for
each product, regardless of whether it was what he was
*really* after.

That is the ultimate question I agree. Total agreement here --
are both parties willing stand behind the project and make it
workable at a _mutually_ acceptable cost.

In this instance it's a moot issue. The OP's deadline has passed
and he's found an alternative solution.

The old adage is true: "When you're up to your ass in alligators,
it's hard to remember that the original objective was to drain
the swamp." /I'm/ wondering what kind of gourmet goodies will go
in the molded plastic trays - and will they go well with coffee?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

In article ,
Morris Dovey wrote:

I use the
input side of a (free!) recycled refrigerator compressor and have
been happy with the job it does.

Good idea! But I really don't have room for a refrigerator....
..
..
..
..
g

Morris Dovey wrote:
Actually, specs seem to (at least almost) always be flawed in one way o=
r=20
another - no matter whether you're cutting and pasting Verilog blocks o=
r=20
MDF blocks.
=20
Real competency appears to lie in being able to emerge from the manure =

pile smelling like roses. In more formal terms, gaining sufficient=20
understanding of the project's real needs to produce something that=20
satisfies them (and perhaps helping to modify the spec along the way, s=
o=20
that everyone learns.)

Can't argue with that.

=20
IMO, agreeing to participate in any development effort includes=20
agreement to participate in debugging the specs - because there isn't=20
any other way that works. People who sidetrack into issues of rightness=
=20
and wrongness /subtract/ from constructive effort.

or that... (usually) :-)

FWIW, in so far as it was intended to, it meets the spec. I produced a =

reject on the first try, corrected the software part program, and got a=
=20
good part on the second try. Normally I don't photograph and show the=20
contents of the scrap bin; but did this time so that I could post befor=
e=20
servers began pruning the thread.

Like to see them

If the work had been done for a customer and if the part that met the=20
spec had not been what was needed, both the customer and I would have=20
decisions to make about what came next.

Always the case :-)

People don't pay for things that don't work. they assume a
credible supplier will "make it right" and fix a bad design.
Not fair -- but that is experience. (Yes it is anecdotal -- I
know) :-)
=20
=20
Glad you put the smiley there, because people always pay for things tha=
t=20
don't work. They pay in time, in effort, in credibility, in goodwill,=20
and all of these things have real value. Perhaps because I've been=20
lucky, my customers have always paid me - or perhaps it's because I've=
=20
taken pains to think and speak of myself and my customer as co-producer=
s=20
of /our/ product.


That's what I always thought...


From time to time I've had clients (not many, and not in WW - that=20
issued PO's, that loved the work, got value from it) then decided not to =

pay because "their budget ran short" -- and I do mean they were=20
satisfied and admitted it -- in no uncertain terms. Simply did not wish=20
to pay -- even though they made money off the work. After that I got=20
more cautious.

Not worth anyone's speculation on this -- they did admit that the PO's=20
were not properly approved and all - but no way for me the supplier to=20
know... Even the Purchasing agent was shocked. He left shortly after in=20
the incident with that one large client -- and admitted later I was not=20
the only one to get a "special deal".

Hence the caution these days...

If it did, then Morris proved what everyone else just talked
about, and he proved it to be different than what everyone
else just talked about.
=20
=20
Well - yes and no. "Yes" because I have atypical shop capabilities and =

in typical shops there'd have been a need for a fair amount of careful =

planning and fixture/jig design and fabrication before a part could be =

produced; and "no" because most people weren't thinking in terms of CNC=
,=20
where a lot of the jigs/fixtures/templates are nothing more than text=20
files and software on a computer.

True - not CNC.

Now that I know someone who has the capability.. I will not ignore the=20
work I see that could use it. However, everyone I see knows now that I=20
did not want (could not do) that work -- so I will not likely see=20
anything in the near future...

=20
Interesting conclusion. Maybe we should have a long chat in a
bar or coffee house one day. After Morris reports -- if he is
allowed to...
=20
=20
'S hard to shut me up. (-:
=20
I'd like to make a motion that we meet in my shop (I-80 exit 110 in Iow=
a=20
- map on web site) for coffee.
=20

Maybe this summer or fall -- I will be going in that general direction=20
at holiday time...


A lot of this discussion has been philosophical (isn't philosophy an=20
important part of woodworking?) The value of a job isn't really just=20
man/machine hours or "what the market will bear" - as Patriarch, Tom=20
Watson, and others here remind us from time to time.


Yeah -- interesting to see the various approaches...

=20
=20
In this instance it's a moot issue. The OP's deadline has passed and=20
he's found an alternative solution.

That's pretty normal.

The old adage is true: "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's =

hard to remember that the original objective was to drain the swamp."=20

I think I live by that.... or maybe it's that people around me do. Hmmm.

/I'm/ wondering what kind of gourmet goodies will go in the molded=20
plastic trays - and will they go well with coffee?

The you are a deeper thinker than I. :-)


Nice to know you are there and available.

--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

In article ,
"SHOOTER1" wrote:

Oh for Christmas sake, give it a rest!! All of you have made your point
(several times!).

Uh ohhh...somebody let his AMT membership lapse...

You can get a cheap venturi vacuum pump from Harbor Freight. They are
in the auto tools portion and sold as AirConditioner vacuum pumps. I
waited until they were on-sale and got one for less than $10. Their
current price is $15.

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/cta...temnumber=3952

Hope this helps.
--Rick


Those venture-type low volume vacuum generators that are mounted inside
my Par-a-lign vacuum clamps, can they be had separately?
http://monumenttoolworks.com/pages/parallign.htm
Small pump source? I have googled myself into tizzy, just can't make
neither heads nor tails from the specs. I seem to get stuck in the
medical research equipment pages.