Angles and threading

Certainly that's true. But if you angle-infeed, the load on the leadscrew is going to be about an order of magnitude more.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Thank you Jim

I simply made a statement that I thought was true and I was told it was untrue. Both you and Gary have had the decency to tell the truth.

I don't care who is right. I just want to know what is right.

Thanks Bill

Sorry about the previous address! Bill

Hi Harold

No, I didn't think so. I was just trying to find out what was right. Jim and Gary were good enough to give me that.

Cheers Bill

Great, won't have to put up with any more of your rants.

However, every word was true! You just don't like the thought that someone can be so good as to set standards when- and where-ever he goes.

Your standards are very different from mine. Really. Fact. Once I had my setup, there was no such thing off my machines as a part not within tolerance. The only standards you ever held were who could have the largest percentage of his work rejected. Shit runners all have big mouths and big ego's. Change jobs often, do you? Think I know why.

You figured out the geometry yourself, Bill. All you had to do was carry it one step further and calculate the relative force vectors from the differential cutter loads.

Gary

Thanks Gary

After you replied I tried doing it from a purely an exposure point of view. IE at zero approach (helix or lead) there would be zero thrust sideways then as the approach angle increased to 30 degrees there would no longer any exposure on the right side of the cutter.

So then I thought how to express that and I thought that a zero helix approach could be represented by dropping a perpendicular down from the height of a 60 degree isosceles triangle, so then the sin of the 30 on each side would have a base of .5

Ok then if I increased the sin of 30 to 33.64 on one side and reduced the sine of 30 to 26.36 on the other side. That produced a base of .5539 on the one side and .444 on the other. Which says that the difference in the sides is about 10% of the whole.???

The thing is, I am not that interested in the *precise* outcome to bother trying to figure out if this method is truly representative of the problem. (life is to short)

In any case, I get your drift.

Thanks Bill

Ahem ... QUADRUPLED production. If you don't think putting a handle on a multi-sided drill jig helps, which is a bit large for one hand and also slippery with cutting oil, then you really need to consider another line of work.

Yer an asshole Lenny!

Pe> Your standards are very different from mine. Really. Fact. Once I

Which I suppose, is why I'm now in the process of rebuilding three lathes, Barnes, SB and Sheldon, helping rebuild an external grinder, then I have a quil for a bridgeport to look an, and all after I finish the English wheel. Maybe someday I'll be able to get back to my own stuff, like the No.2 B&O and the little production mill that needs some attention.

And my best guess, based on many years of experience, the only thing you quadrupled was the amount of bullshit and beer farts coming out of your area.

As I said before, Occasionally I like to listen to a REAL PRO. Please carry on.

Lennie, why don't you put me in yer killfile as you said you already had?

Lennie the Lurker wrote:

Isn't it strange, the self professed "god of machining" can't seem to understand that Google doesn't have a killfile? Real intelligence you have there hoyt, you may be almost as smart as an amoeba.

Please carry on.