Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trouble with a part

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • sconisbee
    replied
    Originally posted by John Stevenson
    Plus VAT...........

    .
    well sure you can have the VAT, ill just claim it back again but surely you should get extra money for commission after all the ideas you put in

    Leave a comment:


  • Rustybolt
    replied
    figured i would have to leave it long anyway so thats less of an issue, thought about the lathe, the only thing stopping me from doing that is counter balencing it properly currently,

    Running a 150mm diameter flycutter would work and the mill could handle it (Gate Profitmill with INT 40 spindle 3hp) but i have to admit that idea kinda makes me nervous a little lol!


    I just finished some alum. parts in just such a way. They had a 6 inch radius. I used our BP boring head that has a side hole in the tool holder and our longest boring bar. I ran it at aprox 700 rpm with no problems.
    maybe screw your acetel part to a piece of metal and then chuck it in the vise.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Stevenson
    replied
    Plus VAT...........

    .

    Leave a comment:


  • Alistair Hosie
    replied
    Sconisbee go to the top of the class you sir are a gentleman and a scholor a man after my own heart.We could really sweep up with this scam as long as nobody reads what we say we will be rich in no time.I bet his lordship wants a hundred too just watchAlistair

    Leave a comment:


  • sconisbee
    replied
    Originally posted by Alistair Hosie
    look you could send me cheque for six thousand then I could get peter to do it and pocket my hard earned thousand for the deviousness involved my muy good self
    or you could send me a cheque for 7 thousand, ill send the drawing and a check for 6 thousand to you and then you can get peter to do it for 5 thousand, then we all win!

    Leave a comment:


  • Alistair Hosie
    replied
    Peter said


    Forget all that advice those others gave you, theres a much easier way to do it.
    Send the drawing to me with a cheque for £5000

    look you could send me cheque for six thousand then I could get peter to do it and pocket my hard earned thousand for the deviousness involved my muy good self seriously have you considered removing the majority with a router table that's how they do cove mouldings etc then it would be realitively easy to remove the last little bit with a mill and hand sanding or machine sanding,and ,or band saw as already suggested Alistair

    Leave a comment:


  • sconisbee
    replied
    The acetal arrived yesterday, got it online quite good quick service really, though i was somewhat slow and lazy getting around to ordering it but i have till march to deliver the part. Anyway i was wondering how many of the UK lot on here have bought materials online and where from? (not including ebay at the moment)

    Leave a comment:


  • sconisbee
    replied
    Originally posted by John Stevenson
    Looks readable to me although I must admit that it would be clearer on the back of an envelope
    .
    Just for John its the best i could do without spending too much time doing it

    Leave a comment:


  • sconisbee
    replied
    well its easy, tolerances are wide open as i said, and the radius goes fully out to the edge of the part, so if you have a sheet milled to that width and that hieght you just mill away then towards the finish just keep an eye on the edges, if i over run a little itdoesnt matter. its basicly a fancy washer.... thus for the basis of exploring my options on making it the minimum thickness wasnt really necicary.. but i wont argue, cause if i were producing an actual drawing to sub out the part or on behalf of the customer then i would have included the extra detail. besides i dont want to start an argument but thats why that dimention is missing.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    Looks readable to me although I must admit that it would be clearer on the back of an envelope
    Except for the fact that the radius is given, BUT NOT THE THICKNESS OF THE PART AT MINIMUM.

    That would be handy, to avoid having to do the geometry to figure out from the side dimensions.

    BTW, I agree, 3.61mm

    Leave a comment:


  • Lew Hartswick
    replied
    Originally posted by Hawkeye
    Can you cut it like they make cove moulding on a table saw. Set a fence at an angle to the blade and run the workpiece through at an angle.

    check this out. http://www.binkyswoodworking.com/CoveMouldingTip.htm
    Unfortunately the result is not an arc of a circle but that of some part
    of an elipse. Not that it may be adequate for this application.
    ...lew...

    Leave a comment:


  • sconisbee
    replied
    Originally posted by djc
    At the risk of incurring someone's wrath, my first idea would be to beat the person who drew the part.

    Also, showing hidden detail of the 8 dia. holes would clarify if they are perpendicular to the base or to the curve - again, this will influence the strategy.
    I drew the part after going through the drawings I recieved (some of which were on bits of envelope! ) i figured i had enough to get the idea accross without overcomplicating a small picture. minimalist drawing was my intent so there be no wrath incurred and your point is well taken thanks

    Peter, real nice offer ......but i only want one! lol

    besides it will be kinda nice to ge the mill doing some proper work now its properly installed, cost me less than £100 and has seen less work than well its seen nexto no work

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter N
    replied
    Forget all that advice those others gave you, theres a much easier way to do it.
    Send the drawing to me with a cheque for £5000 and I'll make you a mould tool, then you can have as many as you want

    Peter

    Leave a comment:


  • rkepler
    replied
    Originally posted by djc
    At the risk of incurring someone's wrath, my first idea would be to beat the person who drew the part.

    There's no dimension showing the distance of the radius point above the base of the part. With tounge firmly in cheek, your machining stategy will be different for three cases: a) dim.>=100.5; b) 100.5>dim.>=52.5; c) dim.<52.5 (!).
    I'm not sure that I get you. With the radius centered over the part (as it must be with only one height specified for both left and right sides) the center of the radius leaves 3.6 & change mm as the minimum thickness on the part.

    Also, showing hidden detail of the 8 dia. holes would clarify if they are perpendicular to the base or to the curve - again, this will influence the strategy.
    They are drawn perpendicular to the flat, else they'd have to be draw with hidden lines or have some other callout.

    It's close to a minimalist drawing, but I've seen worse (like drawings missing that one critical dimension...)

    Leave a comment:


  • John Stevenson
    replied
    Originally posted by djc
    At the risk of incurring someone's wrath, my first idea would be to beat the person who drew the part.

    There's no dimension showing the distance of the radius point above the base of the part. With tounge firmly in cheek, your machining stategy will be different for three cases: a) dim.>=100.5; b) 100.5>dim.>=52.5; c) dim.<52.5 (!).

    Also, showing hidden detail of the 8 dia. holes would clarify if they are perpendicular to the base or to the curve - again, this will influence the strategy.
    Looks readable to me although I must admit that it would be clearer on the back of an envelope


    .

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X