Lathe threading math

All discussion about lathes including but not limited to: South Bend, Hardinge, Logan, Monarch, Clausing and other HSM lathes, including imports

Moderators: GlennW, Harold_V

Post Reply
len
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 1:49 pm

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by len »

Harold,

While I have picked-up a few nuggets of wisdom from reading your posts, I also detect an unbending, doctrinaire attitude that does not serve you well, if your goal is to shareinformation with others. As an example, Forrest Addy is equally informed in these matters, I think you would agree, but I never detect an air of superiority in his posts. I'm sure It's only a matter of style, but I sense it nevertheless.

As to whether you should continue to post or interject your opinions even when not asked is something only you can decide. But if you set yourself up as the policeman for so-called "correct methods", expect some flak from those of us who don't like to be preached to, whether in church or on this forum. It goes with the territory.

Many have written to congratulate you on your stance in regard to correct threading practice, and you can take some comfort in that. Personally, I would be more impressed if the congrats had come from the original poster, rather than your fan club. Preaching to the choir is no big feat.

Yes, there is a difference between home-machining and machining to exact standards. I think most of us know the difference, and employ the method that fits the circumstances. If that means using a chisel to knock out a stubborn nut, in lieu of having the "proper" tool, then a chisel it is. To me that's common sense, and I'm proud to have a good dose of it.

len
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20231
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by Harold_V »

Harold,

While I have picked-up a few nuggets of wisdom from reading your posts, I also detect an unbending, doctrinaire attitude that does not serve you well, if your goal is to shareinformation with others.

Message received. Unfortunately, this smacks of what I said previously. If you expect respect for your opinions in my field of expertise, your going to have to come up to the standard, not expect me to lower the bar to suit yours. If my method of writing, the only way I can provide my instruction, is offensive, you can attribute that to my lack of education. I'll not use that as an excuse for being offensive, but I have had no training in the way of leadership, nor have I made a study of psychology. Beyond that, one of us has worked in the industry, perhaps both of us have. You haven't made me aware of your credentials. Perhaps you have been exposed to a different set of circumstances than had I. Perhaps you are at odds with the methods I have been taught as a result and take exception to my stance because you know and believe something differently than I do. Can't say. Again, all I'm hearing from you is you don't like my posture because it doesn't agree with your position. Industry doesn't, either.

Tell me, len, when you attend a lecture, do you expect the speaker to say what you want to hear, perhaps to support your position, or do you attend to learn something? If this speaker tells you things you don't want to hear, things that may go against the grain with your concepts, do you listen, or do you walk out? If you walk out, do you return again and again to listen, or do you ignore the speaker? These are the options available to you in this instance.
As an example, Forrest Addy is equally informed in these matters, I think you would agree, but I never detect an air of superiority in his posts. I'm sure It's only a matter of style, but I sense it nevertheless.

I have no axe to grind with Forrest, nor am I Forrest. I am Harold, and Harold is posting his true beliefs, and that which was taught him by better men than you or I can hope to become. Forrest has his own techniques by which he shares his considerable knowledge, so if his style suits you best, perhaps that's where you should be, where he is posting. I have no resources available to me that would make me be Forrest, nor do I have the desire, with all due respect to Forrest.

Could it be he abandoned this board for similar reasons? Could it be that he tired of always defending that which he knew to be the truth, but faced those that insisted on doing it poorly, yet wanted help to bail out when their cleverness got them in trouble? Can't say, for I've not made it my business to follow the problems of others. I spend more than enough time trying to post that which I feel will be useful for those that don't think they know more than one that has worked in the trade.
As to whether you should continue to post or interject your opinions even when not asked is something only you can decide. But if you set yourself up as the policeman for so-called "correct methods", expect some flak from those of us who don't like to be preached to, whether in church or on this forum. It goes with the territory.

Atta boy, len. No matter how dark it may be, keep pulling down the shades! Maybe you haven't noticed that the complaining is coming from those that seem to want the easy way out, using clever dodges to avoid doing a project properly, yet they expect the approval of those that have experience, and understand the ramifications of the shortcuts and dodges. That's simply not realistic, nor do I consider it flak. I simply consider the source and dismiss it. There's always going to be the odd individual that expects kudos for a job well done when he has no clue how to do it, and would choose a poor method even if he did. In my opinion, you're no different from the "friend" that wouldn't accept good and useful guidance in learning how to work properly from center. He wanted me to ooh and ahh over his project that didn't work properly, yet resisted any help in bettering himself. The only thing I learned from that experience is it's not wise to try to teach a pig to sing. Your stance reminds me of the guy that has never worked a day in his life, yet hates the rich, not willing to dedicate any effort to bettering himself, but critical of those that have. Very strange philosophy, len. What's next? Book burning?
Many have written to congratulate you on your stance in regard to correct threading practice, and you can take some comfort in that. Personally, I would be more impressed if the congrats had come from the original poster, rather than your fan club. Preaching to the choir is no big feat.

Or could it be that these guys, none of which were solicited by me, have an understanding that you lack? Dunno. The one common thing I see is that, to the man, each of them, myself included, have a firm understanding of the fact that working properly (sorry, I realize how you hate that term) is in their best interest, and taking shortcuts tends towards failure. How is it that some folks never have enough time to do a job right, but always have enough time to do it over? You seem to be preaching that exact philosophy. Industry spent a good deal of time trying to teach me otherwise. Is there any wonder that I don't agree with you?
Yes, there is a difference between home-machining and machining to exact standards.

I rest my case. That has to be one of the best placed shots in the foot of late! [img]/ubb/images/graemlins/grin.gif"%20alt="[/img]

You may find it strange, but the text books make no distinction between good and bad procedure based on where you intend to apply the skills you learn. Are you suggesting to me that, assuming you have received even the most basic of training, that you were instructed to learn poor procedures because they were to be applied only at home? How insulting that would be to those of us that have pride and would like to think that where parts are machined makes no difference, that skill and craftsmanship can and does get applied at home, just as it does in industry.
I think most of us know the difference, and employ the method that fits the circumstances. If that means using a chisel to knock out a stubborn nut, in lieu of having the "proper" tool, then a chisel it is. To me that's common sense, and I'm proud to have a good dose of it.

Until you have learned the difference, it's difficult to know it. I can't help but get the feeling, thanks to your comments, that you don't want to hear the right way, only the dodges, and you hope to have your cleverness become the new standard. That's exactly what I've tried to avoid. Teaching others poor practice. You appear to resent hearing the difference, but maybe I don't understand you well, just as you don't appear to understand me. Mean time, feel free to use your chisel to remove nuts, and feel free to not apply for employment where I hire. Those of us that have worked in the trade know all too well the cost of hiring those that can't discern a hammer from a micrometer, nor when either one is appropriate to the job at hand.

What I had hoped for was for others to provide their comments, len, not you. You had already made me more than aware that you don't like hearing anything that doesn't agree with your thoughts. I hope to hear from those that have remained silent, yet may take offense to my posts. I made it all too clear that I can understand that there may be a desire by some to not have those of us with experience provide our guidance, regardless of the degree of finesse with which it is dispensed. Those are the ones I'd like to hear from.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
Jacin
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:14 am
Location: Near Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by Jacin »

Len, There are many times when I hear a fella say "there's but 1 correct way and THIS is it" I immediately think - Bullcrap there are always many ways - and I think my thoughts apply to many many topics - not quite as much so in machining though, expecially when results matter- or safety comes into play.
I think the overriding message here is that a fella can learn several methods all producing various results - and some of those results varying greatly with the skill of the operator OR we could embrace a Tried and True Method and be at ease in the thought that one is prepared for ALL levels of the challenge!
It reminds me of a Instructor I had in school - Good Old Mario Marcopoli - and while it is true that there were students who would drop his class when they found out HE was the instructor because he was "hard". Well I did pretty good under Mario's wing - and NOT because I was very smart but instead because I actually listened to his wisdom of which included - "you can learn a dozen easier formulas that all apply ONLY under certain situations OR learn a slightly more complicated one that will serve you EVERYTIME. Well suffice it to say that most of my classmates preferred to learn the easy methods. And while they did OK during each week they went on to get their "bells rung" during midterms and finals. I on the other hand did ok using that 1 "complicated" method. I see this pretty much the same.

And while I could agree that those looking to find fault with anyone's writing style - that would be an EASY task. What I haven't seen here is any compelling reason's to abandon the accepted methods.

Now could Harold write in a better more Politically correct manner - well I would suggest you go back and reread his FIRST several posts - I saw nothing even remotely offensive there. I can see that Harold (among others) will get a tad ruffled when someone undermines his efforts - and rightly so. I am the same and would suggest that is a common traight amongst MOST of us - myself especially included.

I'd hardly call Harold's wisdom "preaching" - and if it is then count me in. The funny thing is that in my short lifetime I have met but a SMALL HANDFUL of expert machinist's - they ALL have the same thing to say when it comes to machining threads. Amen!!!! and thank you.
Many have written to congratulate you on your stance in regard to correct threading practice, and you can take some comfort in that. Personally, I would be more impressed if the congrats had come from the original poster, rather than your fan club. Preaching to the choir is no big feat.

Well Len then it sounds like you count me in amoung the choir but I WAS one of the origional posters. Not on this particular go around, but on porevious ones. And while previously others have made all sorts of claims what you can "get by with" I found myself producing some CRAP threads. And whom do you think pulled my bacon out of the fire. Well it was Harold. Your comment above seems only to attempt to reduce the impact of those of us supporting Harold. Sorry I can't sit by and let that go simply because Harold has taught me about threading right here. And it wasn't stuff I merely read, it was REAL problems - with real solutions - and the solutions were NOT shortcuts.

Can shortcuts work??? Sure, but it is a disservice to suggest anyold method is good enough especially for a mere HomeShop guy. Short cuts are for experts who understand the ramifications of those actions. IMHO the suggestion of using them is even fine IF you cover all the bases of what you are risking by doing so.

So yes Len you have correctly labeled me as part of Harold's fan club - something I am proud of being in. I hope to learn more from Harold over the years. Just note this - I have several times written in support of Harold, but it is ONLY on topics I have first hand knowledge - not so much so as any sort of expert, but rather a topic I likely struggled with only to have Harold come to the rescue with sugestions that WORKED - even for me, the mere hobbiest.

My machining hobby is embraced to support my first love of automobiles and more recently my efforts to build a quality (safe) Front Engine Dragster - I have NO INTEREST in producing shoddy parts - ESPECIALLY when it's MY BUTT in the seat!!!

I have to wonder if Henry Ford experienced this much resistance to the thought of interchangeability????

I mean ISN'T that what this is all about??? Making a KNOWN part of a KNOWN tolerance. I see it that way and even as a peon at home I STILL want to produce GOOD parts.

Try this on for size, Harold has been giving us good advice - I have yet to see anyone state he is just plain wrong. His advice comes with his personal experience. It comes for FREE and is accurate, so let me understand the issues - it isn't the EASIEST method and there are times when it could be "said" with a better choice of words??? -As far as I'm concerned the TRUELY IMPORTANT factors are covered and instead you'd suggest we get entangled in the delivery rather than the content. Personally I have absolutely no problem with Harold's delivery and even if I did - who cares when you are only really interested in the CONTENT. Think about it - are we really suggesting he didn't say it NICE ENOUGH

Hey for FREE I'd say we are getting one hell of an education - I personally don't need any gift wrapping and I sure as heck wouldn't complain about it. Bu that's me - I want to learn from the best not the rest.

I apologize for ramblin on so long, but that what you get when I am home with a cold [img]/ubb/images/graemlins/grin.gif"%20alt="[/img]
len
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 1:49 pm

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by len »

Harold,
What I had hoped for was for others to provide their comments, len, not you. You had already made me more than aware that you don't like hearing anything that doesn't agree with your thoughts. I hope to hear from those that have remained silent, yet may take offense to my posts. I made it all to clear that I can understand that there may be a desire by some to not have those of us with experience provide our guidance, regardless of the degree of finesse with which it is dispensed. Those are the ones I'd like to hear from.


The thunderous sound of silence should speak for itself.

Funny, but you are accussing me of exactly what I accused you of, that is, not telerating anybody's opinion except your own. I will let the readers judge who, if any, is to blame for this impasse. (I, of course, assume no blame. [img]/ubb/images/graemlins/wink.gif"%20alt="[/img])

BTW, Forrest clearly stated why he all but abandoned this forum--he couldn't read the posts he was entering due to bad eyesight and the new format, and had nothing to do with bad questions or rigidly held opinions.

len
J Tiers

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by J Tiers »

If I ask a question about something and suggest how I am doing it now, and I am doing it wrong or at least "not right"..........I would welcome Harold or any other telling me I am full of crap, and straightening my fuzzy a$$ out.

I won't require good grammar, or polite words. To the point is OK by me, even if I don't like to hear it.

Maybe that's because I tend to be a bit blunt on occasion also.........or not.
BillJ
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 3:44 pm
Location: Nanaimo BC

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by BillJ »

Len, I don't see the arrogance that you seem to read into Harold's posts. He says he's an expert in one field and what's wrong with that? I appreciate reading expert advice coupled with prideful standards.
With no machining courses where I live, I depend on it.
len
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 1:49 pm

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by len »

Jacin,

If you go back to my original post, your will see that I was only describing the situation as I saw it. A poster had asked a fairly straightforward question, and was given a fairly straightforward answer by John Garner and others. But somehow, the entire discussion turned into the "correct" method of measuring and cutting threads.

Assumming that there is a "correct way", which is not necessarily a given, then there is the question of whether one is obliged to follow it. Harold, it would appear from his posts, and those who have written in to support him, believe so. Others, who may use machining for other reasons than making a living at it, are denied the right to vary from that "correct way". It is implied that we are unfit to call ourselves machinists, even after strenous objections that we have no interest in wearing that cape. Do I need a dispensation from Harold to practice my less-than-perfect methods in the privacy of my own home? Am I upsetting some kind of cosmic order when I admit to using these practices? From the responses I've read, it would appear so, even though some have admitted to resorting to the same questinalble practices.

As to the "correct way" of doing anything, it is not a given that a correct way exists for all circumstances.. Would you say that measuring the threads on mass produced Chinese junk with wires or a thread gauge is the correct way? Yes, we would all welcome better quality control from Asia, but if, and when, that happens, don't expect to go to your local hardware store and buy an angle grinder or drill press at the price your are now used to paying. On the other hand, I'm sure the Chinese factories that produce parts for their missles are full of exotic gauges. Which is correct? The answer is both, just as it is correct for me to turn a thread on an aluminum cylinder by using the compound to measure infeed. Why is that so hard for Harold and others to accept? Did I forget to pay my Union dues?

I mean ISN'T that what this is all about??? Making a KNOWN part of a KNOWN tolerance. I see it that way and even as a peon at home I STILL want to produce GOOD parts.

Try this on for size, Harold has been giving us good advice - I have yet to see anyone state he is just plain wrong. His advice comes with his personal experience. It comes for FREE and is accurate, so let me understand the issues - it isn't the EASIEST method and there are times when it could be "said" with a better choice of words??? -As far as I'm concerned the TRUELY IMPORTANT factors are covered and instead you'd suggest we get entangled in the delivery rather than the content. Personally I have absolutely no problem with Harold's delivery and even if I did - who cares when you are only really interested in the CONTENT. Think about it - are we really suggesting he didn't say it NICE ENOUGH


Most often it's a question of making a know part to know dimensions which requires accurate measurement, but not always. For example, someone who is cutting a v- thread on a 4.5" aluminum cylinder as the first part of a project, to be followed, perhaps, by making a big nut to fit it, wouldn't be required to purchase a set of thread wires, and the accompanying 5" mincrometer, before he could start the project, in my mind.

The accuracy of Harold's advice is not in question. The advice he gives is the same one gets from a good, introductory textbook on machining (notice I said "textbook", not "popular" book). Some of what he says is not in books, and I read that advice carefully, as he is usually right on the mark.

The comment on Harold's style was meant as a suggestion, not as a criticism. If you are trying to reach people effectively, you can't ignore style. And I'm not talking about writing style here; Harold is qulite capable of expressing himself on paper. I'm talking about attitude. Nobody likes to listen to a know-it-all, especiall when he keeps on telling you he knows it all.

The bottom line is that this forum is called "The Home Machinist", For those that can't read, that means the machining you do at home, at your leisure, and, hopefully, in fun. I don't think there is much room for dogmatism in the home shop, although expert advice, when requested, is always welcome. Maybe there should be a parallel forum callled "The Expert Machinist", which would be populated by professionals and would be prefessionals. Then again, if you're a professional, why do you need a forum?

len
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20231
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by Harold_V »

What I had hoped for was for others to provide their comments, len, not you. You had already made me more than aware that you don't like hearing anything that doesn't agree with your thoughts. I hope to hear from those that have remained silent, yet may take offense to my posts. I made it all too clear that I can understand that there may be a desire by some to not have those of us with experience provide our guidance, regardless of the degree of finesse with which it is dispensed. Those are the ones I'd like to hear from.
The thunderous sound of silence should speak for itself.

While the silence is rather comforting, I do not assume I am popular with my stance, that's the reason I offer others to suggest I should shut up if that be their choice.
Funny, but you are accussing me of exactly what I accused you of, that is, not telerating anybody's opinion except your own.

First off, this isn't a matter of your, or my, opinion. This is a matter of very well known and published information that has broad acceptance in all industries, world wide. Your position is that it's not important to measure threads. My position is you don't understand what you're talking about, and until you do, this is going nowhere. The very notion that you think a thread pitch gage can be used as a pitch diameter gage tells me you need to get back to the books. Learn to walk before you attempt to run. I suggested that to you before.

I've done my level best to try to explain to you what is wrong with your position, and I've also told you that I will not stand by and see you attempting to remove the significance of that which I have posted. Not to change your mind, but to have the readers understand that one can not chase a thread by dial with any degree of precision, due to the variables in threads, and often, other circumstances beyond your control. In order to address the variables, one measures the thread, in much the same way one measures a shaft being turned to a specific size. All of this has been kicked to death, and is in keeping with reasonable and good shop practice. I'll continue to speak out so others don't get programmed to disregard measurement of threads. To do so would be a disservice to those learning.
I will let the readers judge who, if any, is to blame for this impasse. (I, of course, assume no blame. [img]/ubb/images/graemlins/wink.gif"%20alt="[/img])

I agree. That's why I asked for those that would prefer that I butt out to speak their minds. I'm also aware that if that be their choice, it will mean time off for me. I dedicate considerable time to this endeavor, all in the hopes to pass along to the readers excellent procedures that were passed along to me by others. I feel the only way I can repay my debt to those people is to perpetuate the process. This forum offers the opportunity.

I can't help but question where you gained such incredible methods, and why you feel they should be passed to others in lieu of acceptable procedures. For the most part, all of us already know how to not do things, or to do them poorly. It's the learning how and well that's more difficult to obtain.
BTW, Forrest clearly stated why he all but abandoned this forum--he couldn't read the posts he was entering due to bad eyesight and the new format, and had nothing to do with bad questions or rigidly held opinions.

Hopefully he has found a place where he is more comfortable. He has a lot to offer, just as the rest of us do. That he may be missed here has not gone unnoticed by me and others, but each of us must do what we must do. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and read posts from guys like me that seem to annoy you so much. Or not.

By the way, try posting some idiotic concept to Forrest and tell me how well he suffers fools. I'm having a hard time thinking he'd stand by and have someone post something as unreasonable as the need for measuring threads not being necessary, all without having an opinion. On the other hand, maybe not.. That's why I speak for myself, not Forrest. [img]/ubb/images/graemlins/smile.gif"%20alt="[/img]

Had enough? [img]/ubb/images/graemlins/grin.gif"%20alt="[/img]

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
Jacin
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:14 am
Location: Near Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Back to Rich C - OFF TOPIC

Post by Jacin »

Len, I have to admit I have lost track how we shifted from the origional post to measuring threads but I also feel that's appropriate. When I ask a basic question - I usually benefit from an answer that goes above and beyond my expectations. That's what I see happened here. Not all that long ago I was cutting some large threads (large for me) and the parts HAD to be correct (maybe not to missile standards, but did have to pass inspection for pitch diameters) - the only thing I had at my disposal (actually I borrowed them) was some thread triangles (due to the large size all my "normal" stuff wouldn't work) anyways - after discussiong it here Harold pointed out the "problems" with thread triangles. Thsi didn't prevent me from using them as that's all I had, BUT it did make me pay particular attention to the thread form on my cutter - something I may not have done had Harold not thrown in his 2 cents.

I think Harold merely wants to "raise the bar" - I see no problem with that. Not everyone will benefit or even be challenged by his efforts, but I don't think that makes them any less appropriate.

When I was having some threading problems it cost me a bunch of time lost on a few parts - not only was I pissed about that, but worse I had no idea of what went wrong. What went wrong was that I unknowingly strayed from "Industry accepted" methods. Where were all the guys telling me they've done it the exact same way for 30 years without incident????? They weren't there to help me that's for certain. And EVEN if they were - they would NOT have been able to help as the probem was one they never experienced. I think it is EXACTLY that which Harold is trying to prevent - guys like me who are NOT machinists, but are looking for professional results. Let's face it - these machines are DANGEROUS we don't get any breaks for safety simply because we are at home. We therefore we would rarely (knowingly) skirt industry safety practices so I don't see a big division for the "rest of it" either.

I would venture a trip out on a limb to say that the only "RIGHT WAY" is by the proof in the pudding. I think THAT was Harold's underlying message - we can cut threads by the infeed method - let's just accept it is skirting accepted industry practice - every industry I know of works to tolerances. Here's an example where our shop got burned.

We were buying custom parts from one of our BIGGER vendors. They being CHEAP did not get a set of GUAGES for some oddball threads - even though our quantities could have easily justified it - instead they used a "known good part" as a mating gage. And LIFE was GOOD for a time a SHORT time. Their makeshift gage quickly got worn and soon they were approving "bad" parts. In the end it cost us a bundle -(can you say field retrofit) and it cost them not only to remake the parts, but worst of all it cost them their reputation - which initially cost them thousands of dollars and ultimately cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars - the latter because they DID NOT LEARN THEIR LESSON.
And you may ask what does this have to do with a HOME GUY ?? Well point is that we ALL get burned. Some ore OK with that while others strive to visit that unfortunate ride but once.

If your method works for you then by all means continue with it. I think the featers get ruffled when a situation arises like mine where I may have employed your method and got burned when had I followed Harold's method I would have been fine. And what was the difference - maybe it's the machine - maybe your's is tighter than mine - maybe it was the alloy of the material. I dunno. I have heard many times that anyone can make good parts on a good machine, but an expert machinist can make good parts on a BAD machine. Part of that is skill - and part of that is practices - industrial accepted good practice.

And if we were to boil this down a bit further, I have heard from Harold himself (among a few other experts I have the luxury to know) that he takes NO CREDIT for these practices as he too was taught them by someone far better than he. These really are industry standards - only problem I see with that comment is that not all industries adhere to them. Some do because they HAVE to - others slip in junk when they can - we once had a vendor do that and offered to "indemnify" (sp?) us for any problems that might occur. Yeah I'd like to see that hold up in court.

But really I do get your point - and I think we all do - and clearly we won't get any precision machining on a "sum flung dung" drill press - nor would we expect to. So there's the rub - do we want to know a better way or not. Personally you couldn't GIVE me one of those drill presses - I'd take one Harold built though.

As far as I see it this country is going to hell in a hand basket as far as manufacturing goes. I am truely hoping I am WRONG here, but that's the way I see it. My most recent examples of this is the wheel on my antique desk chair - after many many years of faithful service the origionals finally gave up the ghost - I bought replacements - they lasted a year and a half. What a joke. Or how about when I asked my wife to grab some hoseclamps when she was out - she grabbed some from Wallmart and while my expectations were LOW these POS were totally useless not good for anything - there was NO WAY these could be used for anything short of hose made from NERF football material. What a joke. Made in "dungland" - Sum Flung Dung - land that is.

So given the multitude of problems that shoddy work produces why is it so bad for soemone like Harold to expect more - Frankly I find it quite refreshing. I've got plenty of marginal crap in my life (including the exhaust on my truck, my LAST set of Craftsman screwdrivers, the 25 year shingles on my house that are blowing off after 15 years ) basically I am tired of it - and refuse to surround my hobby with the slightest notion of it!!!! I don't shop at Harbor Fright either.


So there I have no managed to steer this completely OFF TOPIC - I take full blame for that.
Bu tjust to slightly redeem myself - YES this is about fun - in the home shop - and just as important top you that THAT is not spoiled by Harold's unwaivering high standards it is EQUALLY important (and FUN) for me to make parts as BEST as I can. So yes while the nut and bolt for my gate had no business being up to Class 2 standards - I made them that way anyhow!!! Just to see if I could. And I bet Harold would have been proud of me - I know I was. I when my next Home Project requires it - I WILL be up to the task.

Len no one wants to change YOUR methods - They simply want to let you know that there just may be a better way.

The factor I think we sometimes forget is that there is typically only a SMALL PERCENTAGE of forum readers who will actively post - I don't know that for a fact here, but it seems the standard everywhere else. Given this we NEVER know who all will be reading our rants. It is just good practice to supply the highest level of information - each of us can then determine at what level we need to embrace it.

Surely I am not going to go out and buy an optical comparator (even though I could find one cheap) but a set of cheap thread wires or even thread triangles is certainly practical.

I mean they kinda pale in comparison to what most of our machines cost.

I would hardly consider Harold's attitude one of a "know it all" - when the conversations get deep - he will mention his credentials - how is that any different from the title of "Dr. so and so" I don't see it. And to further add to that, just recently I bought a shaper head for my Bridgeport - Harold was very forth coming providing me with all sorts of help. But when it came down to my question of how one should SOUND Harold came out right away and said (from memory) NOT SURE HAVE YET TO RUN MINE - I'VE ONLY REBUILT IT SO FAR - that's not the answer of a "know it all" - that's an honest answer - plain and simple.

Bottom line I know a couple of Tool Makers and they are from my limited experience very much the same. They tell it straight, they are all type A personality. Maybe it is this reason why I don't "read into" all the "extra" stuff in Harold's comments. For that matter I don't think Harold has any inflated opinion of himself - he is confident - rightfully so. I respect that.

Let's not get all caught up in terminology or political correctness - we have all "taken short cuts" we all knew it wasn't the best method - but we may have gotten away with it - it doesn't necessarily make us particularly GOOD -maybe more lucky. Harold would prefer we were GOOD. Personally I'd like to THANK him for that.

and AGAIN this long winded stuff (from me) is what you're gonna get when I am at home with a cold [img]/ubb/images/graemlins/crazy.gif"%20alt="[/img]

May all your cuts be true
len
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 1:49 pm

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by len »

Harold,

You have accused me of not reading your posts carefully, which I have done several times, to make sure I wans't putting words into our mouth. You, it seems, have not done me the same courtesy. When you say:
The very notion that you think a thread pitch gage can be used as a pitch diameter gage tells me you need to get back to the books. Learn to walk before you attempt to run. I suggested that to you before.


That is nothing but pure, fabricated nonsense, and I challange you to show me where I said such a thing. The closest I said to that was this:
Assumming one starts off with a known diameter workpiece, wouldn't using a standard thread gage to measure the thread be sufficient to approximate the final pitch diameter of a thread one is trying to cut? For precision work one should, of course, use best practices, but lacking the proper tools and/or knowledge to do it "right" doesn't mean to me that you shouldn't do it at all.


Notice that I said "approximate" the pitch diameter not measure the pitch diameter. The thread gauge is used to make sure you have a full-form thread--I didn't think I needed to explain that. Also notice my disclaimers, which you so conveniently left out. And unless the laws of geometry have been reversed since I made the statement, I still stand by it. Notice, also, that I asked as a question, not as a matter of fact that was indisputable.

You can always win an argument if you set up a straw man, as you have done by distorting my statement. But it does not serve your cause, whatever that may be, to use such transparent tactics.

Have I had enough? Yes, I've had enough distortions from you. It's clear to me you are on a crusade to rid the world of practices that you believe don't measure up to your standards, even when people politely tell you they don't want to play your game. Clearly, you have and agenda. Whatever that is, and why you devote so much time and energy to it, I can only guess.

I have one last comment, and I promise this will be the last I will write on this subject, unless you continue with your distortions.

The question is this: How does a CNC programmer set up a machine to cut a 16-tpi sharp V-thread on a 4.5" diameter aluminum pipe? What is the algorithm? Anyone with CNC experience, please respond.

len
Jacin
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:14 am
Location: Near Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Back to Rich C

Post by Jacin »

How does a CNC programmer set up a machine to cut a 16-tpi sharp V-thread on a 4.5" diameter aluminum pipe?


It depends, is it a Home Shop CNC or an Industrial one??


Sorry Len, I couldn't help myself [img]/ubb/images/graemlins/grin.gif"%20alt="[/img]
J_Tiers

Drop it please, don't get this deleted.

Post by J_Tiers »

This thread has info that needs to stay available for folks, don't get it deleted.
Post Reply