Books

OK, time to focus on our library. Can I ask for the top ten books a CNC Machinist must have?
Machinery handbook is a given.

Thank you,
-Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
m wrote:

Martin:
    Here are a few in my library that I think would be helpful.
1. One of those little Trig. books by CarrLane or any number of other companies. Not really a BOOK, more like a pamphlet. 2. "Technical Shop Mathematics" by John G. Anderson 3. "Mathematics At Work" by Holbrook Horton 4. "Geometric Dimensioning & Tolerancing" I forget the author but it's got a blue cover5 5. "Computer Numerical Control for Machining" by Michael Lynch 6. "Learning Computer Numerical Control" by Michael Janke
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1. Bible 2. Google
That's all a toolmaker needs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree with that.
I happen to have verified, through reproducible evidence, something you may not have heard about..it's kind of new: The Law of Conservation of Energy.
Sad as it may be, the problem is that this one simple concept pretty much turns that book into something as real as a Mickey Mouse book.
But I do appreciate your input.
-Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree with that.
I happen to have verified, through reproducible evidence, something you may not have heard about..it's kind of new: The Law of Conservation of Energy.
Sad as it may be, the problem is that this one simple concept pretty much turns that book into something as real as a Mickey Mouse book.
But I do appreciate your input.
-Martin
You erased google? No single source on any subject is good enough.
Between the bible and google, it's all there, the whole known universe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
m wrote:

Martin:
    Now while the Law of Conservation of Energy is sort of a sacred cow in science circles, let's take a look at a possible violation of that law.
    In the standard model, the Big Bang is presumed to have started a finite amount of time ago. Let's just call the start of the big bang T0. Now at T-1 nothing existed, and at T+1 everything (energy at first), that was going to evolve into our universe existed.     Does that qualify as a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy?
    One possible minor local violation that supposedly happens constantly are vacuum fluctuations - where virtual particles (which may become real particles under certain conditions) just POP into existence in the vacuum of space.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bob, Think about these few things....
The observed "red Shift" of distant objects. The observed "Gravitaional Lensing" caused by the mass of Galaxies, and photoans passing near them. The idea that a photons energy is determined by it's frequency.
Lets derive a few things from these "observations"
In order for the photon to be "deflected by the mass of a distant galaxy, it is interactng via gravitation. Therefore the photon must also deflect the distant galaxy by a however infinitesimal amount. In order for the photon to emit that gravitational wave, it must expend energy. Varius explanations for relativity talk about a photon losing frequency in a gravitational field. Nothing nwe here... A the photon interacts while running various "gravitational gaunlets" it is forced to lose frequency in order to emit gravitational waves. IOW, passing through the gravitaional wells if interspersed galaxies, celestial objects, it is forced to lose energy (frequency) and thus red-shift.
Now, red shifting gives the "illusion" that the distant emitting object is traveling away from us. From our vantage point we cannot distinguish redshift from a receding emitter, or a "gravitational gauntlet" the photons must travel through. If we could somehow track a string of photons from that distant emitter, say the stream of photons represented a distant radio transmission, the red shift would indicate that the distance to the emitter is increasing. Realtivity teaches us that we could not determine that the distance between us and the distant emitter was NOT increasing. In fact, if get into our space ship, and head out towards the distant source of photons to investigate, we will be subjected to the same forces as the arriving photons. Every observation we make will indicate that the distant object was in fact, receding.
Now, we have a puzzle. Suppose we are able to build our own model universe, and populate it with residnets, and watch them as they observe some distant star.. We have a "static" universe, but our inhabitants will observe it as expanding.. Everything they do to observe their universe, indicates it is expanding. When it was designed to be static.
We can then observe from the "outside" : That the universe is not expanding, but that space is being generated from gravity. ( !! )
Can we take this a bit further? How long has the "apparent" expansion of the universe been caused by gravity? Is gravity a weakly repulsive force at right angles to it's interaction? If the universe was infinitley dense before the "Big Bang", did it ever really "expand" or does the addition of gravity, and other forces give the "illusion" of expansion to it's residents?
Does it occur to you that i might have tricked you into conceiving yourself to be in another set of dimensional frames than the "occupants" of our model universe?
Conventional theories tell us that the additional six dimensions, are extremely small... all curled up in the confines of Plank space.. What if our dimensions are in fact the tiny ones?
If we are willing to follow this line of thinking a little farther, perhaps the universe, is still in fact, infinitely dense. All the distances are merely "illusions" to the residents, space is "arbitrary". Since we are bound to our reality by the speed of light, our entire concept of time and space are inseperable. If the Universe is possible still infinitely dense, all we see are and live in are dimensions that are infinitely curled up inside that infinitely dense universe, and outside of our observation are dimensions that connect the farthest points of the universe, since theyare still touching. It gives us an opportuinity to think that there are dimensions outside of ours, they connect distant points of the universe, and we in fact DO observe that sort of thing!! Look into the double slit experiment. That sneeky little photon "knows" how many possible paths it could have taken, and interacts as if it had taken them all. That is Imposible if it is travelling through our dimensions, and travelling at the speed of light. It cannot try all possible paths, and do each one at the speed of light. However, if the universe is infinitely dense, it does in fact travel all possible paths, since it is touching both the source, paths, and destination all at the same time. The fact that it takes a finite amount of time to "arrive" at the destination, is an artifact of us being trapped in our tightly curled up dimensions. Our sensation of space, is what creates our sensation of time, and vise/versa.
All of this goes back to the thread drift, the conseravtion of energy.. Maybe it is true locally. But when we get into Quantum effects, things get a little bit less reliable. When we get into celestial distances, we have (as I've theorized) intermediate/local gravity "creating" vast quantities of space. It is inconceivable to genreate enough power to hurl Trillions of distant galaxies and celestial objects away from us at inconceivable speeds and accelerations, but we can generate space, it has a mass of zero after all.... The observed effect is the same, but the source of the "power" is quite different.
Remeber all of this sprung forth from: Red Shift Gravitational Lensing Photons energy is tied to it's frequency Speed of light is constant, due to relativiy.
None of those ideas seem to currently be in dispute. What they might possibly imply taken all together is very interesting.
Martin, Sorry for the thread drift..
I'll second Peter Smid's books. Machineries Handbook, for general use.
Bob, Is this too wrong to be wrong? Or am I not able to explain it with too few words, there are a LOT of leaps of logic, that I've worked out over the years, it is difficult to realize what I leave out as I go through an explanation of something I've been over many times.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Half-Nutz wrote:

HN:
    Jeeze, that's too much data in one post. LOL

    In general relatively I believe gravitation is defined as a bending/warping of space-time by mass. So a photon is not necessarily "deflected" from its straight path, it's still going straight but following a gravitational geodesic or curvature in space-time itself.

    As far as I know photons don't emit gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are supposedly created by very massive objects on the order of neutron stars and such.

    While traveling through a gravitational field (curved space-time) light will seem to experience a time dilation to an outside observer. Also it should appear to change frequency, that's a gravitational red shift. But after the photon exits the warped space-time it resumes its non-time dilation speed and frequency.

    I don't believe the gravitational wave emission by photons is a correct interpretation.

    Light "can" lose energy while traversing a gravitational field by interacting with debris in the field. Just as there may be inter-galactic dust to "scrub" off some energy.

    I don't think that's a correct conclusion. Once beyond out local group of interacting galaxies the farther galaxies show a red shift that increases with distance. And the phenomena is the same every direction we look, plus note that there are no galactic objects in the path of every single one of these galaxies to create gravitational lensing and frequency reduction. It does really seem to be Doppler dependent. Now, much further away I believe there could very well be some frequency reducing debris to pass through.

    The Steady-State theory had many proponents for decades. Trying everything they could do to keep the theory alive. But the evidence for a Big Bang expanding universe was just too overwhelming and the Steady-State theory just faded away.

    I think it's healthy to posit alternate explanations, but in this particular case I believe there is currently too much evidence supporting the standard model.

    You don't really want me to get all mystical on you, do you? LOL

    Well, there ARE seemingly irreconcilable discrepancies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That's why the Super-String & M theory variants are so popular for trying to devise a theory of Quantum Gravity.

    I always thought the Many Worlds interpretation was cute, where ALL the paths happen, just that each path happens in its own split-off universe. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I thought it was cute just the same. LOL

    I think if the universe were infinitely dense there wouldn't be any spaces for things to move in, it's be like one solid mass with no moving parts.

    This is certainly thread drift cubed. I don't think anyone will have read this far. LOL

    Ahh well, theoretical physicists have some new toys to play with in Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Very convenient for inserting in places where there are gaps in our knowledge.

    I don't know, my eyes glazed over about half way through......... Just kidding.

    Actually, I think you explained your position quite clearly. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but it's interesting just the same.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does it finally then slow down some then ?

<snip>
The standard model uses light speed as the constant.

Only because in reality it most likely actually has taken them all.

It instantly appears everywhere.

Only enough room for us, hummingbirds and slugs to live a full life tempural constraints aside.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bipolar Bear wrote:

BPB:
    Heh, you know it doesn't (only the frequency and wavelength change when it loses energy). And actually light is very out of the ordinary compared to everything else in our daily experience. When photons are emitted from an atom they don't accelerate up to lightspeed, they supposedly start out going lightspeed. Quit odd little critters.

    Someone posited that ALL electrons are just ONE electron going back and forth in time to make it APPEAR like there are a universe full of them.

    The God Particle.

    How much room does a dream take up, eh?
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That depends on whose it is and the energy with which it's pursued <g>
JC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

tempural
An eternal instant.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bob, Thanks for the reply. I thought that might be a little too much at once..
I am arguing that the universe IS expanding. That fits our observations.. But it is expanidng 'in our dimensions' not necesarrily in the other dimensions..
Taking the observation I listed, by the route I took, we can specualte on the existance of other dimensions.
Weather a photon is "deflected" by gravity or travels through 'curved space" does not matter for the anaylsis. The fact that the galaxy can affect i'ts trajectory ( either call it curved space, or call it deflected by gravity, implies that the photon also moves the galaxy. Granted it is too small to measure, but it must, as we understand the world.
I used the "thought experiment" of creating a model universe, and watching how the "inhabitants" observe it, to illustrate that the inhabitants, trapped in their reality of thier own universe, will observe an expanding universe. WE observe that we live in an expanding universe. At least in the dimensions that we normally observe.
The whole original "description" where we accept that the photons will lose some energy by moving a galaxy as they travel past it, can lead us down the path, as a mental exercise. Taking that little "mental exercise" we finally break free from our limited perceptions about the universe we live in. Suddenly, that one little thing, a photon losing energy by moving a galaxy, opens up the peception, that maybe, gravity itslef can have a role in creating space. if space can be created, it is a much more palatable concept than al of the matter in the universe suddenly flying apart at faster than the speed of light, ( some parts of it, anyway). Suddenly we can imagine where it it psosible to create space, rather than accelerate all the matter in the universe. I don't see how it is possible to comprehend such crazy, non-intuitive stuff as QED, ad quantum effects as long as we are trapped in our current fram of references, the current dimensions we live in.
If we can consider the point of veiw from outside the universe, looking in, things are very, very differnet. Suddenly, QED, and "entanglement" and the neccesity(?) of a multiverse has a much more rational, and simple explanation. If we look in on our imaginary "residents" who seem to observe an expanding universe, we can see how they would make the conclusions about the world they live in. For them the universe is VERY much expanding. What drives that expansion? The invention of time and gravity. Curious how objects that "have no mass" are forced to travel at the speed of light in our world.
Maybe this further obfuscates things... It seems to hold up very consistently with all observances that I am aware of.... And to experiemnts.
Any more ideas?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Half-Nutz wrote:

HN:
    Sure, anytime. Or anytime that I HAVE time. <g>

    What concerns me is that current observations seem to indicate that the universe is "open" - which if true means it will continue to expand forever. That's not near an elegant a situation as a "closed" universe would be where all the matter/energy would eventually collapse in a Big Crunch and start the whole process over again.

    Well, there have been recent speculations on the existence of Branes and Multiverses outside our own.
======================================================http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
    Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology motivated by, but not exclusively derived from, superstring theory and M-theory.
    The central idea is that the visible, four-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk". The additional dimensions are compact, in which case the observed universe contains the extra dimensions, and then no reference to the bulk is appropriate in this context. In the bulk model, other branes may be moving through this bulk. Interactions with the bulk, and possibly with other branes, can influence our brane and thus introduce effects not seen in more standard cosmological models. =====================================================>

    I'm sure you're correct, radiant energy does effect matter. But like you say, it's probably too small to measure.

    I'm sure you're aware of the "inflation" shortly after the Big Bang.
=======================================================http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
    In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation is the hypothesis that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally connected region. Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the big bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the big bang, a highly curved, inhomogeneous universe? Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).[2] Inflation was proposed in January, 1980 by Alan Guth[3][4] and was given its modern form independently by Andrei Linde,[5] and by Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt.[6] ======================================================>

    Even with all the recent speculations about dimensions (infinitesimally small OR cosmically large), there may not BE an outside to our universe. If the curvature of space-time is sufficiently large - space-time may be curved back on itself. Where if a beam of light was aimed in one direction it would EVENTUALLY travel through the universe and come back to the source from the oppostite direction. So if the universe were folded back on itself - there might not BE an OUTSIDE.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A common misunderstanding of the scientific process.
The fact that we don't yet fully understand the origins of the Universe down to, as you say, a "T-1", "T0", "T+1" model has nothing whatsoever to do with what we DO know. The Law of Conservation of Energy is pretty much impossible to break. I would venture to guess that if we ever understand things all the way to the the origins of the Universe this will still hold. And, if it doesn't, it'll be because the process will uncover an equally strong, reproducible and verifiable mecanism or law that can be confirmed by peer review and is supported by a wide range of evidence.
Anyhow, I just fail to see how a book that violates just about everything we've learned about the known Universe --in more ways than I care to explore-- has anything whatsoever to do with CNC machining. But, then again, what do I know?
-Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
m wrote:

Martin:
    "Pretty much impossible to break"? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to take exception to that comment. There are no absolutes in science, only provisional "truths" subject to change. The progression goes something like this:
================================================================http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Hypothesis:          A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Theory
    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Law
    A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
    As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. ===============================================================> I would venture to guess

    Scientific laws can change when new data is found that contradicts it. Just because a scientific law hasn't been contradicted (yet), doesn't mean that it is an absolute truth.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting Vinny's choice of the Bible as being a valid reference source for machinists, or as anything more than his attempt at trolling. LOL
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you read the rest of my post I pretty much cover this.
But you are wrong. There are an infinite number of absolutes in science: 1 + 1 = 2
Replace the left side with any two real numbers (infinite choices) and you'll get a result that is an absolute unchanging truth.
Here's another truth: On Earth, gravitational pull is towards the center of the planet.
Anyhow, we can play this game forever. The fact that we don't yet know something doesn't automatically validate supernatural ideas about that something (and particularly if those ideas where developed 2,000 years ago, when ignorance was commonplace).
-Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
m wrote:

Martin:
    I did read it. And it seems you essentially said it was impossible to break - BUT if it WAS broken it would be replaced with another 'LAW' that would also be impossible to break. Until the next time. Is that essentially the gist of it? <g>

    Math is not an absolute in the sense of having definite objective existence, it's human mental construction. A way of symbolically representing reality.     I guess our definition of absolute is not congruent. Let's see if I can get us on the same page.     An absolute truth is something that is 100% certain - without there being ANY possible doubt whatsoever. There are very few absolutes.
    What do you know to an absolute 100% certainty?

    There "may not" BE any such thing as discrete numbers in an existential continuum. Numbers may have no more objective reality, than any other fanciful mental construction.

    First you don't know if what you perceive is real or a solipsist fantasy. We could all be part of a computer program experiment on some alien spaceship. Are you seeing my point about the definition of how I'm using the term absolute now?
    But even in your Earth gravitational example, gravity as understood by GR isn't actually a force that "pulls", the mass of the Earth curves space-time itself. But like I said, we don't even know THAT to an absolute 100% certainty.

    We're just chatting amicably about stuff, this isn't Earth shakingly serious.

    This is the second time you've mentioned something like this. So let me make my position more clear. I don't believe in the God of the Bible. BUT, while I don't believe in a supreme being - the "possibility" of such an entity is non-zero.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wow, that was a hard turn into the wall at 100mph. What a fun ride! Religion and politics the easiest way to start an argument. Not that my suggested reading list really matters in this existential physics topic, but here goes:
Haas Machinist's CNC Reference Guide
Marks Engineering Handbook Jurans Quality Control Handbook Dimensioning and Tolerancing Handbook Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook Desktop edition Fundamentals of Tool Design
Mechanisms and Mechanical Movements A Metallurgy or Properties of Materials text book
And of course; the 2009 Solidworks "Bible"
Apparently none of us can count to ten. As always, for what it is worth, in my sometimes humble opinion. JL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

2 on topic posts out of 88. WOW.
I would add the manuals for each machine/controller.
I find them most useul.
Just bought Peter Smid's "CNC Programming Handbook" (3rd ed.) for my birthday.
Thank You, Randy
Remove 333 from email address to reply.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.