No announcement yet.

Meet My Supervisor: Pete Puma

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuckerfan:
    [B when it took him that, a jig, and about twenty toe-clamps (he seems to have a fetish for those, for some reason)?[/B]</font>
    I can understand him having a fetish about those.


    • #17
      You find them in every field. As IBEW said, most are promoted.
      Years ago (before my time) a mech. was bringing a DC-3 up to the ramp, to impress waiting passengers, he spun it around, hit the brakes, stood it on its nose, whacked both props, ENGINE CHANGE TIME!
      Prompted to supervisor later.


      • #18
        I'd have to see the code before and after before I decided who the idiot is.

        Flying blind and changing someone elses code can cause problems.

        If you write your own code from top to bottom then you might be knowledgable enough to make changes.

        As a writer of code I'm not sure which side to take. It is extremely risky if someone would change even one character in any of the thousands of lines of code that I write. All the functional sections of code are EXTREMELY sensitive to ANY single character being changed.

        I'd be pissed if someone edited code that I wrote without discussing it with me. The problem might not be the code, but in the machine set up which must be done first.

        You'd be looking for new job.


        • #19
          SJorgensen, I don't have a copy of the program or I'd show you. All the program needed to do was counterbore 3 holes .750" deep. The way the program was originally written, there was no way to tell what your Z 0 setting should be as far as the distance for the cutter from the part when the cutter was at Z0. The value he'd keyed in for Z was some oddball number like 936. I changed the program so that the stop point for Z was .750, added a line so that the cutter would retract above the part before it shifted to the next the next hole.

          After I explained everything to him about the changes I made, he always said that what he did was chuck the part in the vise, run the quill down until the cutter touched the part, set his Z0 at that point, then ran the quill up about .200", reset Z to 0, then run a part, pull the part out, check the depth of the hole, make whatever adjustments to his Z0 he felt he needed, chuck the part back up, rerun it, unchuck it, check the depth, adjust, and repeat until he got the depth right or the part was scrap.

          With the way I rewrote the program, all you have to do is chuck the part in the machine, indicate in your X and Y, then set your Z0 by touching the cutter to the top of the part. You can then fire the machine up, let it run, and it cuts the hole to the correct depth the first time.

          If he'd have written the program like that the first time, I wouldn't have had to make any adjustments to it.


          • #20
            Tuckerfan,I have had similar experience with the above mentioned a--holes.They do exist in every company.The guy I work for now and everyone else I have ever worked for save one company has whole heartedly encouraged empolyees to make improvements when and where they can be made.Its just smart business sense.The one company that didn't no longer exists.

            You mentioned that the company you work for is near bankruptcy.I'm sure there are many reasons for this,but one might be the wrong use of cnc equipment.Don't get me wrong,they do have a place,but the part you mention sounds too simple to need a cnc.Using manual when needed keeps a company afloat,using cnc when is not needed sinks it,I see it all the time.

            I would not be too quick to move,if you play your cards right you could be running that shop in a short time,if they ditch Pete,that alone will save them money

            [This message has been edited by wierdscience (edited 10-13-2004).]
            I just need one more tool,just one!


            • #21
              Dup post

              [This message has been edited by SJorgensen (edited 10-13-2004).]


              • #22
                Dup Post. Sorry the system seems to have a glitch. Delete post doesn't work.

                [This message has been edited by SJorgensen (edited 10-13-2004).]


                • #23
                  Well Tucker,
                  You do seem to have a good handle on what you want the code to do, and if the original process was as nonsensical as you said then your method would be preferable and more accurate and repeatable. However I have found it better to set the Z-zero point above the stock like the original story is. The difference is that I manually raise the table until I pinch a piece of paper between the stock and the Z-zero point. This lets me raise each new piece of stock to the Z-zero point instead of trying to drive the qwill down to set the Z-zero point on the stock.

                  I had just chucked up my brand new $40.00 four flute milling bit and was carefully lowering the quill to the surface of my stock to set the Z-zero position. Just when it contacted the stock I heard a little crick noise. Sure enough my bit was ruined before I had even cut a single chip.


                  • #24
                    you sound like you had my old boss-i just never realised that all the time he was "in the field" he was moonlighting as a machinist.

                    some one famous said "you rise to the level
                    of your incompetance"

                    [This message has been edited by thistle (edited 10-14-2004).]


                    • #25

                      Fixturing offset (G91 or G92?) is one offset you can do to run parts from a know "XYZ" location. I remember G90 as being the return of normal location dimension.

                      With a cnc machine, you must set the mill up exact each time you load a collet. Bridgeport has a spindle-test fixture in thier book. I have not ever saw one in person.. I have thought of powering the knee on my machine and letting it "touch find" the switch I'd mount on the table.. Each job is different thou.

                      Yep, you can make lots of junk, break lots of tooling with cnc. It is not a automatic machine by any means. It must be monitored.
                      I seriously, hooked up the home switch on my machine Z axis yesterday. I have been running it for a couple of years now I think without one. Hitting the home button, then typing in the height I set it at.. whoo hoo.. I am going to add them on the other two axis.. I normally reset machine zero to match vise corner or a point on part.

                      A tabletop machine can teach you the gcode basics.. a simple stepper drive can just cost as little as $40 each.. 250 oz motors are as little as $10 a piece on ebay.. A XY cross slide will work for a table feed and a xl pulley on a drill press downfeed works as well.. My machine I built like this was only good for plastic and drilling pcbs thou.. It'd run a program through supper and sometimes till bedtime.. run maybe 10ipm max... My bridgeport can run 120ipm in a G00 move... The welding robots I worked on could hit four or five times that.. It was strange thinking while running the pendant that you could stick the tig torch clean through you by a slip of the speed control while on manual. Something else to think about.

                      Spence: DId you ever get the bridgeport operation manual scanned into pdf? that would help lots of people wanting to learn coding.

                      My machine is making parts... but I am still learning too.. If you stop learning you are dying while still breathing.

                      I have thought of building a lathe type cnc with stepper chuck.. just for sharpening tooling.. Imagine that? You'd need a adequate scanner too thou.. (working on that too)

                      David Cofer, Of:
                      Tunnel Hill, North Georgia


                      • #26
                        <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thistle:
                        you sound like you had my old boss-i just never realised that all the time he was "in the field" he was moonlighting as a machinist.

                        some one famous said "you rise to the level
                        of your incomptetance"
                        It's called the Peter Principle


                        • #27
                          I thought long and hard before posting this, but have to. Th story was good, and I understand the situation, but there are habits that you can get into.......I say all of this in a spirit of kindness, of constructive suggestion, and as one who has been in the "Programmers seat", and the teachers seat.

                          I worked for people like that before, had to replace one for six weeks as a summer job, programming and doing manu. engineering for a local shop (75 people), and trained the replacement in the process. best thing I taught the guy, who is still there five years later (brag) is this, go out and talk to the people who will run the parts, get to know their work habits,"quirks", and expectations /limitations and tell them your habits and standards in programming and design, and your expectations. Also, get to know each machine and its "quirks" / limitations - you find these out from the people who run them. By doing this, you can get some standards worked out in programming and operations worked up in a very short time. keep on this "two way conversation mode" as much as you can, especially with the new jobs, or "like type" jobs that only have different dimensions.

                          Although you seem to have a grasp on the programming, it is very important, as noted above, to be careful in changing programs. Anyone who changed my programs was expected immediately to tell me firat when possible, writ notes about the changes, do a save under a name or number different than the original "back through the wire", put their name and change date / time in a note in the program header, do a print out for the machine, the shift operators, the process sheet set, and for me - all with the edits marked. I would also be on hand for the run of the changes so I would know what was up. If the machine crashed of something was radically changed, I could read it ahead. Besides, if something changed and was not tracked, the idea from above would be it was my problem to deal with. This is the standard there. They have some real fine people at that shop (and few "Pete's").

                          This reduced problems, lead to people who were smarter, and gained accountability. It also lead to people not afraid to edit in he pinch, and people who were standardized in things like the "Z0", and approach vectors to the part, and safety lines, and even coolant turn on and off points. I made safety lines match those from the department heads (mills, lathes), and through cooperation, we - (mostly they) got some standards worked up for each machines "new" posts. In the end, they all did the bulk of the work, an my job was surely easier because of th communication. I had to remember, they had been there before me, and would be there after me, I just had to get things back to par, and get some standards set back up for the new guy.

                          Sounds tight, but it is not. I give this example. One guy, my third day as a programmer for the company, changed a tool change on the program to a "timed change" after the last tool (Mattsuura Mill, the big red ones with the HS spindle). last tool finished, rapided up, stopped, and the idea was that the tool would stop on "dwell" for 10 to fifteen seconds for a part change in the vise, then the tool would index tool one back to the spindle for the next program run. Good idea in theory, for you hit the green button after a part is loaded, saves the initial tool change time, and even the man time stop for inspection and away we go (UNDERSTAND HE HAD A "REPEAT" TYPE OF PARAMETER CODE TO PREVENT HAVING TO HIT BIG GREEN TO START PROGRAM, BUT TOOK IT OUT AT THE END OF THE SHIFT). Bad thing, I did not know about this tool change, and after the part had stopped running, I did a quick inspect IN THE VISE. Suddenly, the tool indexes, LONG DRILL, and damned near rips my arm right off in the process, took 15 stitches on that one.

                          A little communication would have saved me some personal harm.

                          Pete may be a total jerk, but you may want to avoid the habit of editing without at least telling your future employers first, and leave a trail of your edits in the process for safety sake.

                          BTW, I laughed like crazy at your story, an i can see Pete Puma being like the Looney Tunes Puma.

                          [This message has been edited by spope14 (edited 10-14-2004).]
                          CCBW, MAH


                          • #28
                            SJorgensen, you're absolutely right, I should have touched off that way. I tell you, though, I've never had a job with any company where I didn't have to spend 99% of my time doing things in some half-assed manner because I couldn't get management to spend the fifty cents necessary to do the job right. I'm so used to doing things the wrong way, that I really have to stop and think on how to do them the right way. So far, I haven't destroyed anything expensive, but no doubt I will sooner or later.

                            wierdscience, you may be right about the cnc, I don't know, this is the only machine shop I've ever worked in. I do know that this is a job we run about every month with an order of 60 or so parts. The biggest waste, I think, is that there's three seperate programs for the part, when all that's being done to it is drilling three through holes, and then counterboring them halfway. And I have a feeling that Pete will be the last to go if the company really starts foundering, since he's a shirt-tale cousin of the owner.

                            spope14, you sound like my kind of programmer. I didn't mention this before, but when I finished the job, I did notate in the program how you were supposed to set the machine up to run the parts. I did that because the program was such a radical departure from how he normally sets jobs up, that I figured if I didn't, he'd turn the next batch of parts into scrap before he realized what he was doing wrong.


                            • #29
                              Main thing is don't moove on because of Pete, because as surea as eggs there will be another Pete waiting at the next job.

                              Agreed! After spending 22 years in th USAF - I have worked with and for "Pete". The good thing about the military is that either you or "Pete" will be transferred sooner or later. Hang in there, it all works out in the end.



                              • #30
                                [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tuckerfan:

                                [b]And I have a feeling that Pete will be the last to go if the company really starts foundering, since he's a shirt-tale cousin of the owner.

                                Oh crap,I hate realitives,they almost never know what they are doing,except when pi--ing people off.
                                Best thing to in that case is put the gun down and remain calm

                                I just need one more tool,just one!