twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 13 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 5/16 Tool Bits
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/371ca87c9b111661?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 4:42 pm
From: Wes

Mark Rand <randm@internettie.co.uk> wrote:

>They're not set up for 5/16", they're set up for 8mm :-)

I use alot of 5/32" tubing. Must be because it is just about 4mm ;)

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 5:31 pm
From: Jim Wilkins

On Jan 11, 7:03 pm, "Bob La Londe" <nos...@nospam.no> wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > What do you have now?
>
> An ancient bench grinder with the original generic wheels about half wore
> out, and one dressed down square.
> Actually I am looking at setting up a chuck for a 3" diamond wheel on my
> lathe, and using a Wilton style 3 axis vise mounted on a slide to get the
> same results as a fancy sharpener for a fraction of the cost.

This is the tool post I made.
http://picasaweb.google.com/KB1DAL/Tools#5302259874580966978
Somewhere, not on this computer, I have a photo of grinding a
threading bit to the correct angles in a fully articulated Univise on
my surface grinder, but I grind all normal HSS turning bits by hand on
a cheap 6" bench grinder I bought at a yard sale. They simply aren't
worth the trouble to set up a fixture for the front rake, then the
side rake and finally the top rake each time I want to touch up the
edges. The bits were all ground differently to solve some new problem
and the angles aren't written on them, so I'd have to carefully
measure them first.

Besides, the acceptable tolerances are huge. You really could take a
new bit, grind the bevel on the end for a few seconds to sharpen the
top edge and start cutting with it. If you ground a similar bevel for
a short distance along the left side of the end it would work pretty
well to turn a cylinder. Tighten the angle between the left and end
cutting edges somewhat, say to 80 degrees, and it will cut up to a
square shoulder and then face it.

It's difficult to grind an edge lengthwise along the bit, like the AR
holder:
http://www.wttool.com/product-exec/product_id/31965/nm/Indexable_Carbide_Turning_Tool_Sets_USA_

The easy alternative is to grind off both corners to make a spear
point, like the BR or E, and rotate the bit in the tool post. As long
as the angle between the cutting edges is less than 90 degrees it can
cut up to a shoulder in both directions, parallel to the ways and
straight out.

These were all ground freehand:
http://picasaweb.google.com/KB1DAL/Tools#5304243778674022866
I roughed out the discolored one with a 7" angle grinder and you can
see the finish it left on the narrowed shank. I cleaned up the smaller
internal threading bit with a 1" belt sander, for my resume kit.

The round-nosed one at the top was the traditional shape of forged
carbon steel tools for general turning. That one makes half-round
pulley grooves.
The one under it rounds the end of freshly cut threads with the left
end and digs most of the metal out of deep narrow grooves with the 30
degree point on the right. I ground the concave surface with a
slightly tapered stone in a die grinder.

Notice that the rounded bits have flat tops. Top rake makes a bit cut
better but it is NOT essential, and is generally left off formed
shapes like those to preserve their geometry.

Probably the hardest part of freehand grinding is judging the angle of
the steel against the wheel. I set the bit the way I want by pressing
it against the motor housing and then shift over to the wheel with my
legs, so my arms don't move. I let the bit float a little to keep the
whole surface in contact and get a hollow grind that's easier to touch
up with a whetstone.

jsw

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Survey Transit Optical Plummet
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/fa5097e24ceef8e7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 4:46 pm
From: oldjag

On Jan 11, 4:03 pm, Brian Lawson <laws...@ciaccess.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:05:50 -0800 (PST), oldjag
>
>
>
> <msmith5...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >I found a Schneider TT700 transit on Craig's List I couldn't resist
> >buying. It was probably made in the late '80s and seems in good
> >shape and nicely made. I borrowed a much older K&E to do some layout
> >work for my new garage a while back...so this seemed to be useful tool
> >for the price. I guess transits go for next to nothing now, most
> >surveyors I've seen use the electronic theodolites and stations,
> >probably a lot faster and more accurate. Anyway, the TT700 transit has
> >an optical plummet, which not being a surveyor, I've never used.
> >It's a scope mounted in the side of the housing with two mirrors
> >allowing a view out the center bottom of the mount. The mounting
> >thread for the transit is 5/8-11. I need a tripod for it, and after
> >looking at a few in on Ebay, most seem to have a hollow 5/8"-11 center
> >bolt. Is it a reasonable assumption that most any tripod with a
> >hollow 5/8-11 bolt is designed to allow the optical plummet scope to
> >"see" a target under the tripod? Also would be nice if I could find
> >a copy of the manual somewhere...guess I'll call around Monday and see
> >if anyone has ever heard of this unit and has an old manual lying
> >around.
>
> Hey Jag,
>
> Would this 5/8 bolt with a hole thru have been to hang a plumb-bob
> on/from? And would the "plummet" you mention take the place of the
> bob?? Good idea, as trying to keep the bob line placed over the mark
> in the weather is tough.
>
> Brian Lawson,
> Bothwell, Ontario.

Yes; the plummet takes the place of the plumb bob. The scope on the
side of the housing "looks" through the hollow center bolt and focuses
on the target on the ground. Of course you could attach a plumb bob
to the hollow bolt instead, but normally you would not need one.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT- Jump Start Box recommendations
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b621703834023d9a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 4:50 pm
From: "Peter DiVergilio"

"Ignoramus27261" <ignoramus27261@NOSPAM.27261.invalid> wrote in message
news:EomdnZGDqul_A9fWnZ2dnUVZ_o5i4p2d@giganews.com...
>A mildly stupid question, but how do you jump start cars with screw
> terminals, where screws are not easily accessible.

There is normally an access point made available for the Positive side
so cables can be attached, sometimes enclosed in a red plastic box under the
hood.

--
Peter DiVergilio
All the money I ever wasted was spent trying to impress somebody who was
never going to like me anyway!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 4:58 pm
From: Larry Jaques

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:45:38 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus27261
<ignoramus27261@NOSPAM.27261.invalid> scrawled the following:

>A mildly stupid question, but how do you jump start cars with screw
>terminals, where screws are not easily accessible.

With jumpstart terminal adapters, of course, Ig.
They're about 5" long, IIRC. http://fwd4.me/B5I cheaper elsewhere

If you get a pair, I strongly recommend heatshrinking one with at
least 2 layers of tubing. You don't want your hot terminal grounding
out in those tight spots!

--
What helps luck is a habit of watching for opportunities, of
having a patient, but restless mind, of sacrificing one's
ease or vanity, of uniting a love of detail to foresight, and
of passing through hard times bravely and cheerfully.
-- Charles Victor Cherbuliez

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 5:34 pm
From: notme@privacy.net (dan)

What's that Lassie? You say that Stormin Mormon fell down the old
rec.crafts.metalworking mine and will die if we don't mount a rescue
by Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:58:40 -0500:

>Might have got a lemon. I went to HF and got one with the 22
>amp battery. One day my Blazer was dead, but the HF box
>wouldn't start it. The box was a couple days old, and I'd
>done the required over night on charge plug. So, it
>"shoulda" worked.

I got the largest one HF sells, 24 Ah I think. And the first thing I
did is open it up and check the connections. Not good. I replaced
the cheap clamps with a pair that I had around, and replaced the lugs
and internal cables at the battery and the heavy switch. I still
wouldn't believe the claims in the catalog(650/1200amp).

And I charge it with a good charger, I don't trust the built in
charger.

Dan H.
northshore MA.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: GoldFinds.com Forum Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/3261df26512f1224?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 4:50 pm
From: AntiAdvocate

Great Google Group talk about experiences finding gold and silver.
Information on gold prospecting, dredging, panning, sniping, sluicing
and dredging. Shop talk about experiences finding gold and silver
coins, tokens and jewelry with metal detectors. Also California
politics and news on Mining Rights for Small Scale Miners. Post your
recent and any other antique and collectables treasure finds ! Come
on by ya all...Its FREE !

http://groups.google.com/group/goldfindscomforum

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Great idea to help "military intelligence"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/acec89491b7abbdf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 5:11 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"

Ask Santa, I'm sure he will give you one.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Buerste" <buerste@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:miC2n.1928$Mv3.432@newsfe05.iad...

Can't I have control of a loaded Predator? I'll be careful!

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 5:32 pm
From: Jim Wilkins

On Jan 11, 4:36 am, "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com> wrote:
> ...
> Can't I have control of a loaded Predator? I'll be careful!

Do you have a Concealed Carry license?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 5:37 pm
From: Ignoramus21069

On 2010-01-11, Stuart Wheaton <sdwheaton@fuse.net> wrote:
> Lewis Hartswick wrote:
>> Ignoramus27261 wrote:
>>> Read this:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/11drone.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently, the drones are capturing so much video information, that
>>> the military has to hire thousands of analysts who watch those
>>> videos closely.
>>> I have a suggestion.
>>> First, let me digress and mention the fact that my site algebra.com
>>> has hundreds of volunteer math tutors who help students for free. They
>>> do so just because they like to (and they like the thank you
>>> letters). Some people are true addicts and do dozens of questions per
>>> day.
>>>
>>> In light of this, I would think that there are at least thousands of
>>> bored American patriots, with plenty of time on their hands, who would
>>> want to help the military fight the war.
>>> And the suggestion is to let them watch the current videos, as
>>> captured by drones, and comment on the activities that they
>>> observe. There is a few very basic things that could be done to ensure
>>> that "wrong people" do not interfere with military operations: they
>>> can be assigned to people on a random basis, without them knowing the
>>> actual area where the videos are being taken, and second, more than
>>> one volunteer wuld be assigned per video (so that purposely "not
>>> noticing" some acttivity would not be helpful to terrorists). Third,
>>> every signin would have a reputation, based on how they agree with
>>> other observers.
>>> Some very basic security like requiring an SSN and income from latest
>>> IRS form 1040, would also cut down on the number of potential
>>> disrupters.
>>> The volunteers, obviously, would simply highlight current goings on
>>> and recommend a military analyst to have a second look. They would not
>>> be authorizing strikes or anything like that.
>>> I would think that with the actual quality of drone video, some very
>>> basic instruction should be enough to prepare people for the job at
>>> hand.
>>>
>>> All that it really requires is a streaming website, database system,
>>> and a authorization system.
>>> What'cha think?
>>>
>>> i
>>>
>> Sounds like the SETI project. Does anyone know how that
>> is (if still) going??
>> ...lew...
>
> SETI at home used idle processing time to look for signal in the noise
> pulled from outer space radio. Computers do this well. Computers are
> not yet particularly good at looking at a cluttered photo and deciding
> whether something is a rock or a dirty truck. People do that well, and
> for some kinds of analysis not much training is needed, just helping to
> select what MIGHT be worth looking at with skilled eyes might save
> thousands of man hours.

You said it very well.

All that these amateur analysts need to do, is pinpoint areas of
interest.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 5:46 pm
From: notme@privacy.net (dan)

What's that Lassie? You say that Ignoramus27261 fell down the old
rec.crafts.metalworking mine and will die if we don't mount a rescue
by Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:18:52 -0600:

>I have a suggestion.

I remember when we were looking for sadam, there was a web cartoon
that used this idea. There were thousands(millions?) of these little
ROVs that were controlled like an online game. The idea was that if
you found something interesting, you would flag it and a military tech
would check it out. The ROVs looked like little potatoes with spider
legs. Sorry, but I have no idea of the url or title or anything.

Dan H.
northshore MA.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Plot to Wreck America
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/3bfa7ff9ba2c07ac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 5:40 pm
From: "Bill McKee"

"Cliff" <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:o6ank55ma2nr9cf9j7c6rr5i0s7uituceq@4ax.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10rich.html
> "The Other Plot to Wreck America "
> [
> THERE may not be a person in America without a strong opinion about what
> coulda,
> shoulda been done to prevent the underwear bomber from boarding that
> Christmas
> flight to Detroit. In the years since 9/11, we've all become
> counterterrorists.
> But in the 16 months since that other calamity in downtown New York - the
> crash
> precipitated by the 9/15 failure of Lehman Brothers - most of us are still
> ignorant about what Warren Buffett called the "financial weapons of mass
> destruction" that wrecked our economy. Fluent as we are in Al Qaeda and
> body
> scanners, when it comes to synthetic C.D.O.'s and credit-default swaps,
> not so
> much.
>
> What we don't know will hurt us, and quite possibly on a more devastating
> scale
> than any Qaeda attack. Americans must be told the full story of how Wall
> Street
> gamed and inflated the housing bubble, made out like bandits, and then
> left
> millions of households in ruin. Without that reckoning, there will be no
> public
> clamor for serious reform of a financial system that was as cunningly
> breached
> as airline security at the Amsterdam airport. And without reform, another
> massive attack on our economic security is guaranteed. Now that it can
> count on
> government bailouts, Wall Street has more incentive than ever to pump up
> its
> risks - secure that it can keep the bonanzas while we get stuck with the
> losses.
> .....
> ]
>
> Naturally the rethugs will lie .... and demand even more deregulation &
> tax cuts for their bestest $$ buddies ....
> --
> Cliff

Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his buddy
Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 6:53 pm
From: Van Chocstraw

Cliff wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10rich.html
> "The Other Plot to Wreck America "

Plot? It was a Bush success! Ran the ship of state aground like he
fucked up everything else he has done all his life.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 7:50 pm
From: "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:o6ank55ma2nr9cf9j7c6rr5i0s7uituceq@4ax.com:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10rich.html
> "The Other Plot to Wreck America "
> [
> THERE may not be a person in America without a strong opinion about
> what coulda, shoulda been done to prevent the underwear bomber from
> boarding that Christmas flight to Detroit.

I don't have a strong opinion on it cuz I'm one of the few ppl with enough
sense to realize terrorism is a microscopic problem. Bee stings kill more
americans.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Got the CAD drawing, sending parts to CNC shop, couple Q's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/4bf26f51e10e480d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 6:14 pm
From: Steve Walker

Ned Simmons wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:28:29 -0800 (PST), rbce2003
> <rbce2003@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The only way I can envision the next step is for the shop to hold the
>> raw material (in this case a 4" wide x .750 thick aluminum bar stock)
>> either on a basic jig (called jig A) on the mill table, or in a simple
>> mill vice, then run a first program to drill the fixturing holes that
>> I have designed into the part for second step fixturing in JIG B.
>> They would then have to remove the part from JIG A and install in jig
>> B, and run the rest of the program. Is this plausable?
>
> Ask the shop. If they're really interested in the work, they'll talk
> to you. I've seen many parts, like what I imagine yours to be,
> machined in multiples from a large piece of material. The material is
> clamped to the table on top of a sacrificial plate. A small attachment
> to the plate is left as the last thing to be cut, releasing the
> individual parts and leaving a skeleton as scrap. But talk to the
> shop.
>
>> My Next concern would be the something that only the shop I choose
>> will answer 100%, but could I expect to give them the DFX file and
>> they then can convert it over to talk to their machines?
>
> Most shops will appreciate a dxf. But I always tell them they use the
> supplied dxf at their risk -- the print is the controlling document.
>
>> Then, how does one decide what tooling to use? We are talking about
>> smaller shops without the budget for the latest/greatest software...
>> so does something like MACH3 or the other CAM software pick the tool
>> sizes? Or does the machine programmer look at the print and say... OK,
>> I'll use a .250 end mill for here, and a .750 for there, etc??
>
> Other than obvious things like avoiding sharp inside corners,
> especially on deep pockets, let the shop worry about it.
>
>> I suppose this leads to another question... is it prudent for the
>> person drawing the files to try and use radius' thruout the part that
>> coincides with common sizes of tooling? I mean if I need a radius on
>> a part, and the shape is not a critical design element, then Pick
>> something simple like a .250 radius? Is that just good design work..
>> meaning everyone in the trade already knows to do that?
>
> Give plenty of latitude on non-critical radii. For example:
> R .25 APPROX
> R .312/.188
> R 1/4 (if your title block allows an appropriate tolerance on
> fractional dims)
> R.25 +/- .03
>

I do CNC programming & setup (20 yrs+). Ned's idea of a sacrificial
plate we use very often. We also use a plate, with counterbored tapped
holes in it. A couple of tiedowns to clamp the part, drill through the
part where the counterbored tapped holes are, blow out the holes, put in
bolts, remove tiedowns, and machine the outer profils.

Also, tolerances dictate cost. The looser the tolerance, the lower the
price. Common end mills (lower cost) come in 1/4 inch increments. If
possible, specify I.D. radii in 1/4 inch increments, and tolerance them
+.015 to +.030, and -0.

Surface finish callouts are beneficial to the quoting process. If not
specified, you may get (and pay more for) a smoother finish than you
actually need.

--
Steve Walker
Fusion640@verizonwallet.com (remove wallet to reply)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 6:58 pm
From: Half-Nutz <3t3d@centurytel.net>

On Jan 11, 8:14 pm, Steve Walker <fusion...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ned Simmons wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:28:29 -0800 (PST), rbce2003
> > <rbce2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The only way I can envision the next step is for the shop to hold the
> >> raw material (in this case a 4" wide x .750 thick aluminum bar stock)
> >> either on a basic jig (called jig A) on the mill table, or in a simple
> >> mill vice, then run a first program to drill the fixturing holes that
> >> I have designed into the part for second step fixturing in JIG B.
> >> They would then have to remove the part from JIG A and install in jig
> >> B, and run the rest of the program. Is this plausable?
>
> > Ask the shop. If they're really interested in the work, they'll talk
> > to you. I've seen many parts, like what I imagine yours to be,
> > machined in multiples from a large piece of material. The material is
> > clamped to the table on top of a sacrificial plate. A small attachment
> > to the plate is left as the last thing to be cut, releasing the
> > individual parts and leaving a skeleton as scrap. But talk to the
> > shop.
>
> >> My Next concern would be the something that only the shop I choose
> >> will answer 100%, but could I expect to give them the DFX file and
> >> they then can convert it over to talk to their machines?
>
> > Most shops will appreciate a dxf. But I always tell them they use the
> > supplied dxf at their risk -- the print is the controlling document.
>
> >> Then, how does one decide what tooling to use? We are talking about
> >> smaller shops without the budget for the latest/greatest software...
> >> so does something like MACH3 or the other CAM software pick the tool
> >> sizes? Or does the machine programmer look at the print and say... OK,
> >> I'll use a .250 end mill for here, and a .750 for there, etc??
>
> > Other than obvious things like avoiding sharp inside corners,
> > especially on deep pockets, let the shop worry about it.
>
> >> I suppose this leads to another question... is it prudent for the
> >> person drawing the files to try and use radius' thruout the part that
> >> coincides with common sizes of tooling? I mean if I need a radius on
> >> a part, and the shape is not a critical design element, then Pick
> >> something simple like a .250 radius? Is that just good design work..
> >> meaning everyone in the trade already knows to do that?
>
> > Give plenty of latitude on non-critical radii. For example:
> > R .25 APPROX
> > R .312/.188
> > R 1/4 (if your title block allows an appropriate tolerance on
> > fractional dims)
> > R.25 +/- .03
>
> I do CNC programming & setup (20 yrs+). Ned's idea of a sacrificial
> plate we use very often. We also use a plate, with counterbored tapped
> holes in it. A couple of tiedowns to clamp the part, drill through the
> part where the counterbored tapped holes are, blow out the holes, put in
> bolts, remove tiedowns, and machine the outer profils.
>
> Also, tolerances dictate cost. The looser the tolerance, the lower the
> price. Common end mills (lower cost) come in 1/4 inch increments. If
> possible, specify I.D. radii in 1/4 inch increments, and tolerance them
> +.015 to +.030, and -0.
>
> Surface finish callouts are beneficial to the quoting process. If not
> specified, you may get (and pay more for) a smoother finish than you
> actually need.
>
> --
> Steve Walker
> Fusion...@verizonwallet.com (remove wallet to reply)

I would recommend specifying inside radii a little bit bigger than a
common fraction.
For example, an inside radius of .140" will cut smoothly with a 1/4"
endmill, but a .125" radius will chatter and work better with a
smaller endmill, which cuts slower. Modern CNC and CAD/CAM systems
create a toolpath to follow any specified radius, but matching the
radius to the endmill is a Bad thing. In the old days with a manual
machine, using the radius of the endmill to generate the inside radius
was the easiest way to go. Now that is not true.

Also, tolerances are one thing, as long as they are over a few
thousands, on a modern CNC do not seem relevant to me. If you have a
tolerance of .05" or a tolerance of .005" my cost will be the same. I
am not hand filing down to a size. The machine and process will come
out more accurate anyway, unless there is an issue with holding the
parts, or there is a ridiculous amount of steps to make the part. If
the tolerances get smaller than .002" then they can become a factor on
a small part. .0001" gets more and more expensive. But loose
tolerances don't help me out since the machine is making the parts to
a basic tolerance no matter what anyway.

Many parts I make from thicker material, then flip them over and
machine off the bottom.
If the top has a feature I can grip easily, they get flipped over into
standard jaws. Otherwise one of the quickest ways is to cut a custom
set of soft jaws to clamp the top of the part into while the bottom is
milled off.
You can also cut reference surfaces for secondary operations that get
milled off in the final operation.
An example of that was set of custom roller rockers for a hot rod
valve train.
The first operation cut out the basic shape from thicker material, and
also cut some extra angle surfaces on the extra material. The second
and third operations were at odd angles for the push rod screw and
another hole at an odd angle. The last operation cut the built in
fixturing off of the final part. Leaving someone wonder how much magic
custom tooling it took to make. Not much, it was built in, and
disappeared at the last operation.
For small runs I don't like to be making little fixtures and screwing
parts down If I can slap them into soft jaws, or leave features on the
partially finished part that will be my fixtures. The other advantage
is in and out of soft jaws is really fast. And with a location feature
made in the first operation, tolerances do not add up so much from the
needed clearance of a secondary fixture.

Getting back to cost, small features are costly. I just made a batch
of parts that were 4" by 1.75" the outside cut really fast with a 1/2"
endmill. But, there were tiny little slots, that needed a 1/16"
endmill. Those little slots cost more than the rest of the part, and
the material.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT-Taxpayer Bailout
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/f19c0a51efe81bb7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 7:16 pm
From: "azotic"

1.) Congress has lowered the threshold to capture more wages that qualify to
owe taxes-across the board. For example, in 2009 the withholding tax
threshold began at weekly single wage levels of $138. In 2010, that same
wage is lowered to $116. In short, instead of the taxable wage starting at
$138, it is now down to $116-which changes the income threshold and taxes
even poorer Americans.

Why would the Democrats create more wage categories and deliberately target
the middle class with a huge withholding increase and 30% tax rate? Are the
Democrats trying to backfill the deficits they created in 2009? Because
taxpayers will have overpaid the federal government payroll taxes, will they
be eligible to get back this additional withholding money in a tax refund
when filing in 2011? Do taxpayers in the hardest-hit wage categories even
realize that their paychecks are going to be significantly lower, unless
they make the necessary changes?

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/06/dems-tinker-with-withholding-tax-tables-for-2010/

What a great idea, reduce disposable income for poor americans. Now that
what i call a stimulas package....

Best Regards
Tom.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 7:51 pm
From: cavelamb

azotic wrote:
> 1.) Congress has lowered the threshold to capture more wages that qualify to
> owe taxes-across the board. For example, in 2009 the withholding tax
> threshold began at weekly single wage levels of $138. In 2010, that same
> wage is lowered to $116. In short, instead of the taxable wage starting at
> $138, it is now down to $116-which changes the income threshold and taxes
> even poorer Americans.
>
> Why would the Democrats create more wage categories and deliberately target
> the middle class with a huge withholding increase and 30% tax rate? Are the
> Democrats trying to backfill the deficits they created in 2009? Because
> taxpayers will have overpaid the federal government payroll taxes, will they
> be eligible to get back this additional withholding money in a tax refund
> when filing in 2011? Do taxpayers in the hardest-hit wage categories even
> realize that their paychecks are going to be significantly lower, unless
> they make the necessary changes?
>
> http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/06/dems-tinker-with-withholding-tax-tables-for-2010/
>
> What a great idea, reduce disposable income for poor americans. Now that
> what i call a stimulas package....
>
> Best Regards
> Tom.
>
>

In my humble opinion, Tom, it's because they aren't Democrats any more.
And the republicans aren't republicans either.

They have both become "the party in power" (when in power) and would
more accurately be called _federalists_.

For what ever it might be worth...

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power
to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour...
Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will.
Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kinda on-topic: Shoes for Metal Roofs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/fc18d5322feea788?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 7:17 pm
From: "Greg O"

"Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
news:meOdnS6tmKSzS9XWnZ2dnUVZ_v9i4p2d@web-ster.com...
> So, every roof on the property is now metal. Our house roof is the
> raised metal-tab stuff, and when it gets the least bit wet it's slicker
> than snot -- to the point where we've already had a family member fall
> off and injure himself (not badly, but still a good warning).
>
> My New Balance tenny runners don't grip it when it's wet, I can just
> barely keep traction by sitting down on it in jeans -- and denim usually
> grips metal roofs pretty well.
>
> So, are there any trick shoes, or shoe attachements, that one can wear to
> keep from falling and breaking one's neck? Any of them that don't cost
> an arm and a leg, yet still really work?
>
> TIA
>
> --
> www.wescottdesign.com

I work on a 5-12 pitch metal roof from time to time. I would not even
consider going up there when the roof is wet or snow covered. This is a
standing seam roof, so no screw heads to stand on. With my hiking boots I
wear I can almost stand in place on the roof when it is dry. I will slowly
slide down and have to reposition my feet a few times a minute to stay in
one place. Try to sit on the roof and you will slide right off if you are
not tied up, or hanging on to something. A safety rope is the best option
with a safety harness, but I often work on this rood with no gear. working
up there was a bit un-nerving at first, but the traction is fairly
predictable, but bordering on poor!
Greg O

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 8:56 pm
From: "William Wixon"

hey tim, good luck.
i'm surprised nobody has cracked a joke yet about magnetic shoes. i did a
google search just as a goof, this is the only thing i could find for
"magnetic shoes"

http://www.toya.net.pl/~mother/Gimnazjum%20II/Cale%20strony/Magnetic%20Fields%20and%20Forces_pliki/manclimbingsteelchimney.jpg

b.w.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nine new engines? -- six new transmissions? -- 60 new engines and
transmissions?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b8b4dc84440d7d89?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 7:29 pm
From: Jon Anderson

Wes wrote:

> Have you moved to OZ already?

No, and right now I'm hoping not to for a good while. I'm supposed to be
getting a call this month to chat about a killer job. It's a back door
deal brokered by a friend that works there. Would be the job of my
dreams and would allow me to bring my wife here when her daughter
graduates, and put her through a culinary school. My buddy's been there
6 years and is the junior, most have been there 15-26 years. It's the
sort of place I could work until ready to retire. Yeah, there's still a
few places like that in this country. I consider myself fortunate to
live within commuting distance to one and have a friend on the inside.

Wish I was there now though, my stepson is bowling in the Bradman Letter
cricket match as I'm writing this. He's the most outstanding bowler in
the region, but Coota is a small town and hard pressed to put a good
team together in 16 and under. This match is played between Cootamundra
where Don Bradman was born, and Bowral where he grew up.
In 30 years, Coota's only won 4 times. David's a wicked fast bowler.
I've faced him bowling just tennis balls and have zero chance of hitting
one. (well, doesn't help that I swing the cricket bat like a Louisville
Slugger, lol...) I'll have to wait a few hours for them to ring me back
with the results...

Jon

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Teenut". . . . . Gone, but not Forgotton
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/d94817875f9e44ba?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 7:42 pm
From: "Martin H. Eastburn"

Hear hear!
Long missed on this level but gaining on another.

Martin

rangerssuck wrote:
> On Jan 11, 9:28 am, Bob Gentry <rgen...@oz.net> wrote:
>> With my morning milk glass raised high.
>>
>> Hope his lovely wife is doing well.
>> rgentry at oz dot net
>
> Wow. I was just thinking about him yesterday.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DRO
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/9ce07130a2903c0e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 7:59 pm
From: Ralph

If you are looking for a low cost high tech DRO take a look at this
http://www.shumatech.com/web/products/dro-550/power-buy

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Time to get tougher
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/857dcab3153330a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 7:58 pm
From: Retief

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:42:06 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:

> >>So, what's your answer?
> >
> > Poor Ed, he has gotten so desperate that he now evades the answer,
> > when it is presented to him.
>
> There was no answer in your post, Retief. All you've done is make stupid
> assertions and then ask irrelevant questions.

Let me repeat one more time for Ed, "a Constitutional Republic is
different from a democracy."

Conversely, Ed has repeatedly stated that the United States is a
representative democracy.

We shall review these positions.

> You're a fake, Retief -- a complete phony. You don't know what the Founders

You're a fake, Ed. You have lied and misrepresented facts at every
turn. You don't what the Founders said, you don't know what they
meant, you don't know what Constitutional scholars have said, and you
don't know what the Courts have said.

> In fact, he says in that same Federalist that constitutions provide no
> assurance that factions will not prevail:

Certainly Ed, no government is immune to corruption. Just look what
you and yours have done to the federal government -- the proof is in
the pudding.

Once your "more big government" faction controls all 3 branches of
government, which were designed to provide checks and balances, no
man's life, liberty or property are safe. When these groups conspire
to break the law, then no mere piece of paper can stop them.

You and your ilk have subverted the established government, to create
a government unrestrained by Constitutional limits -- indeed, a
democracy (with all of the evils that arise from such).

See Hamilton's essay in Federalist #28 for his proposed solution to
this sort of abuse.

> Madison makes an argument for an all-encompassing, federal government that
> proponents of small government, today, would find obnoxious.

Proponents of small government at that time found it obnoxious.

The Bill of Rights was a compromise created to obtain their vote for
ratification (including, we note, an amendment prohibiting the federal
government from the exercise of powers not granted/enumerated).

> another hopeful bulwark against factions. But his distinction is based on
> the scope of the republic, and his description of a republic, as you saw for
> yourself if you actually read Federalist 10, is identical to what we call a
> representative democracy.

Nonsense. You are determined to misrepresent it, but the term
"democracy" appears only as a derogatory term.

From the very basics, a representative democracy is simply a democracy
carried out by elected officials. That is, it is simply majority
rule.

And you further persist in your claim that that since the various
branches of government are populated by individuals selected through
the method used by a representative democracy, that the entity as a
whole is a representative democracy.

That is erroneous, Ed - your chosen species of argument is known as
the Fallacy of Composition:

The Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared
by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of
those items; or that a property of the parts of an object, must
also be a property of the whole thing.

Let's do a couple examples:

1) We could use the same argument for your person: You are 90%
water, contaminated with various organics and salts, therefore
you are generally worthless, just like any other bag of
contaminated water.

2) A car is made from steel. Therefore a car is steel.

But since you are still having trouble with this issue, we can consult
Black's Law Dictionary, to determine the difference (I just happen to
have the 2nd edition sitting here):

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power
resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens; as
distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.
According to the theory of a pure democracy, every citizen should
participate directly in the business of governing, and the
legislative assembly should comprise of the whole people. But the
ultimate lodgment of the sovereignty being the distinguishing
feature, the introduction of the representative system does not
remove a government from this type. However, a government of the
latter kind is sometimes specifically described as a
"representative democracy." (pp. 351)

The astute reader will notice that "the introduction of the
representative system does not remove a government from this type."
Of course, Ed will miss it, because it directly contradicts his false
assertion.

Republic. A commonwealth; a form of government which derives all
its powers directly or indirectly from the general body of
citizens, and in which the executive power is lodged in officers
chosen and representing the people, and holding office for a
limited period, or at most during good behavior or at the pleasure
of the people, and in which legislative power may be (and in
modern republics is) instrusted to a representative assembly. See
Federalist No. 39;

Gosh, I wonder what a Constitutional Republic would be:

Constitutional. Consistent with the constitution; authorized by
the constitution; not conflicting with any provision of the
constitution or fundamental law of the state. Dependent upon a
consitution, or secured or regulated by a constitution; as
"constitutional monarchy," "constitutional rights."

Well, now that we see that a Constitutional Republic would be a
Republic authorized, empowered and limited by a constitution, we need
only know what a constitution is:

Constitution. [...] In American law. The written instrument
agreed up by the people of the Union or a particular state, as the
absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and
officers of the government in respect to all points covered by it,
which must control until it shall be changed by the authority
which established it, and in opposition to which any act of
ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void.

Thus Ed, a Constitutional Republic derives its limited, enumerated
powers from the people. In our implementation of a Constitutional
Republic, we established a system that requires a super-majority to
change the founding document.

We will note that the US Supreme Court concurs:

Duncan, 139 U.S. 449 (1891)

By the Constitution, a republican form of government is guaranteed
to every state in the union, and the distinguishing feature of
that form is the right of the people to choose their own officers
for governmental administration, and pass their own laws in virtue
of the legislative power reposed in representative bodies, whose
legitimate acts may be said to be those of the people themselves;
but while the people are thus the source of political power, their
governments, national and state, have been limited by written
constitutions, and they have themselves thereby set bounds to
their own power as against the sudden impulses of mere majorities.

But, as expected, Ed persists in claiming that we are, and should be,
a majority rule, not a rule of law.

> So you strike out again. Too bad; you're not stupid, just lazy.

So Ed, Black's Law says you are wrong (and despite repeated urgings,
you have failed to correct your errors). The US supreme Court says
that you are wrong.

Tell us Ed, are you stupid, or merely a liar?
Retief

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 8:02 pm
From: Retief

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:05:06 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:

> > And THAT, Ed, is why we are a Constitutional Republic.
>
> HAHAHAhahahoho...He's arguing for a LARGE UNION, a large-scale government as
> opposed to a small one, you phony. That's what Federalist 10 was all about.

<sarcasm on> Gosh, you mean that Madison's argument for why the
federal Constitution should be ratified was referring the
establishment of a federal authority? Say it isn't so...

The Federalists were the original "big government" proponents. But
let us also note that Madison's proposed LARGE UNION was nothing
compared to what you and your ilk have foisted upon us by subverting
and violating the lawful limits placed on the federal government, by
the Constitution.

> project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a
> particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more

Let us retain this piece for further discussion.

> "In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a
> republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.

Clearly "the whole body" refers to the various branches of federal
government, combined. And thus, as long as the branches don't
conspire, they will blunt each others efforts to violate the limits
placed on their power. Thus, the proper structure of the Union will
encourage republican jealousy, and was hoped to provide a remedy to
the those diseases.

> THAT is the "republican remedy." In Federalist 10 (as elsewhere),
> Madison is

That republican remedy was a system of checks and balances,
established by division of power between different branches of
government, equal in power, and representing different groups. The
founders counted on this jealousy from the various branches of
government to continually beat down the ability to enact oppressive
and abuse statutes.

Many have pointed out that the popular election of Senators stripped
the State governments of their say, and their ability to block
legislation intrusive upon States rights, and has landed us where we
are today.

> a republic. Today, we call such a government a representative democracy.

And again, both Black's Law dictionary, and the US supreme Court say
YOU ARE WRONG. But you will persist in stooping to your
misconstructions, in attempts to grant the federal government all
powers, without limits -- indeed, a democracy.

> Madison wanted a big, all-encompassing, federal government.

Madison wanted a government powerful enough to perform the duties
enumerated, and noted that it had no authority out side of those
specified powers.

It is YOU, Ed, who wants a big, all-encompassing federal government,
subject to the whim of the majority, and unrestrained by law.

Retief

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Monday, January 11, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts