Carbide Pedestal / Bench Grinders

Exhaust valves.

Black Dragon wrote in news:h3ptfk$2es7$ snipped-for-privacy@bdhi.local:

More often used for valve seats. The old propane/butane LPG engines had stellite seats and stellite valves with sodium filled stems. Also used back then in "extreme duty" truck engines by all manufacturers. Some guys just couldn't understand why it cost $600 to rebuild a set of small block truck heads. The damn exhuast valves cost $50 each.

And 90% bullshit.

The issue was tetraethyl lead was sold ( and lapped up) as a lubricant so that when the valve broke contact with the seat, a welding and tear of material didn't take place.

In cast iron heads, erosion did take place after hundreds of thousands of hours (adjustments to fuel mixtures sold stopped it all long before the material sales started)

The "valve" issue didn't/doesn't exist.

"High nickel" seats were and are sold by the billions to address the microsecond oxidation issue.

Run em on propane with good old shitty valves.

"Scott" wrote in news:C5OdnR75eqYB0PzXnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:

All I know is what I personally observed during the 35 + years I was involved in "re-manufacturing" engines of all types. Propane/butane engines used hard seats (stellite) and sodium filled stems because of the lack of lubricity of the fuel and too carry off the heat from the valve face faster.

I have seen many propane conversions that suffered valve seat recession of more than an eighth of an inch in less than 200 hours of operation because "it costs too much" to put hard seats and sodium valves in.

Come on man.

The "sodium filled valves" and "stellite seats" aren't the issue.

You may have made your living doing it, but that doesn't make the BS true.

I did more than a couple motors myself, the oldest being built in 1914.

Sodium filled valves (go ahead and shoot us a link to a place to commonly purchase those for commonly made engines, shit how about a link for sodium filled valves for a small block Chevy) and "stellite" seats aren't the issue, never have been.

It is a very simple chemical reaction that has been around since the big bang.

How many new engines are built with sodium filled valves and stellite seats?

Fords?

GM?

Honda's?

Hyundai's?

Toyota's?

Harley Davidson's?

Joe788 wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

You'd be amazed at what you can fit in a car with a little ingenuity. The Saab would struggle with the weight though.

They make a nice tool grinder. A little over priced IMO. We've only sold them to Japanese transplants. So no doubt that's where that one came from. It's prbably got another 20-30 years of life left in it.

If business didn't suck so bad, I would buy it for our tool room. There's also a Tsugami microscope on Ebay. I wouldn't mind having that either, although I'd rather have the universal scope they used to make rather than the one on Ebay.

There's also an ancient 2-axis gang tool lathe. We should buy it and send it to Cliff so he can practice prgramming negative "X" values.

Cliff wrote in news:d9q5651om5bqhslr7bcqi12asn48teggs2@

4ax.com:

What part of negative X-axis values is unclear to you?

Do you have a forklift or should I have a rigger bring it over?

Not something I said and Cliff knows it, he is still trolling himself.

It's Cliffs way of covering up the fact that he posted two lines of g-code with five mistakes in it as a sample of his work and hasn't been able to correct it.

What is this something like four or five years down the road now and Cliff has never fixed his error riddled code nor has he posted the (mythical) profile he says he can program but you or I can't using our method.

Hope things are going well for you Dan.

-- Tom

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

All that little bit of insanity proved was just how clueless you really are. Actually it showed you had zero comprehension of what Tom's lathe programming metheods really are.

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Yup.

He never will.

Just another day in Barackatopia.

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'll bet they do. They probably pay them less than what I paid the government in taxes last year too. So they aren't likely to get any that are any good.

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

>> >>

>>

Nope.

Nor does it prove that you could create a shape that can't be programmed on a 2-axis lathe using "direct input of drawing dimensions" or what you call "WSP" or whatever made up buzzword idiocy you favor.

But you've never really understood that have you? You can write a program from any arbitrary point on the tool, slide, turret, or out in space including the center of the TNR which is just plain bad practice on a lathe. But there doesn't exist a shape which can't also be programmed from any arbitrary offset point.

To think otherwise just proves you have no clue. I can't explain why you can't see the blindingly obvious. You program the "correct" path using your method and I can easily offset your numbers to the center of the turret, the imaginary sharp point of a tool that in reality has a radius, the middle of the square shank of the tool, wherever you want and the machine will machine the shape correctly.

In the case of using the imaginary sharp point where the tool in actuality has a radius, you of course have to compensate for the radius. I've posted the math before. A child can do it. Now if you take that case and juxtapose it into a case where you have a formulated or parametric shape, the same mathmatical compensation has to take place in order to end up with the correct profile. Just because you can't "see" the math doesn't mean it can't be done.

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'd be surprised if there was very much I could learn about emptying the garbage, changing lightbulbs, or sweeping the parking lot.

As far as CNC Swiss goes, I'll wager that I'm already more qualified than anyone working there. And earning far more than any two programmers or machinists in that place put together. So what would be the point? To take a big pay cut? Why?

I wonder if he's working at the place that offered me a 25% stake back in the '80's just to go work there? Is it medical? What town are they in?

any one ever tried cryogenics on carbide? Freeze the shit out of it for a week technique?

- that's way out there-

Be nice to have: before & after microscope pics excel spreadsheet with all data showing treated/ untreated - number of pcs ect. - placebo for JB.

Unless its an OmniTurn lathe..in which case you just ripped all your tools out of their holders.....

Oh I see it's just OmniTurn lathes and no other gang style lathe does this. You really are a moron.

Jon Banquer San Diego, CA

Only an idiot like Jon Banquer would assume such.

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Sure I did. You didn't like the way Tom answered a question about how to touch off a lathe tool and made all sorts of amusing and wild assumptions about a subject where you are clearly over your head.

Nope.

I've never turned metal with a banana but I would assume that it wouldn't work.

Nope. You program the same points just offset.

But no good reason to do it on a lathe.

Again, tool nose radius comp on a lathe and cutter comp on a mill are two different things. Also the control we were talking about didn't have it in any case.

So we were right then.

We weren't talking about all controls. Only the Fanuc that the OP had.

Nope. Touch the tool in "X" and in "Z" and set the offset. It couldn't be easier.

Why? I've looked at them several times and you are still clueless.

Your not being able to program a couple of lines of code from the center of the radius without making bunch of simple math errors was impressive.

OK. When can you start?

Then stop bringing it up as proof you don't know what you are talking about.

I never stated I directly use the print dimensions, Cliff made that part up and has been trolling his Cliffvised version (himself) and not something I actually said.

What I wrote was our program points more closely represent the print dimensions than Cliffs, which they do.

Example:

Front of part Z.000 in our program Z.031 in Cliff's program

1" diameter on the print X1.000 in our program X1.062 in Cliffs program (had he programmed it correctly)

So which method is closer to dimensions on the print?

===

Then there is the added step for operators using Cliffs method:

Wear offset inputs at setup (in this case just one tool .031 R)

All wear offsets 0.0 for our program

X-.062 input for Cliffs program Z-.031 input for Cliffs program

So at setup operators have to input two offsets for every tool in Cliffs program and None for any tool using ours.

-- Tom