Member postings for Mark C

Firstly, Russel and Dave, I did not mean the BS people. I meant the subcontract certification houses who use the legislation as a cash cow.

Second, as I said before, why on earth do we (professional engineers?) need further layers of bureaucracy to cover what we all do anyway as it has always been covered by other acts?

Third, R&D has always done (dodgy) stuff that would never normally be allowed on the basis that design engineers ought to understand the risk. The way it always used to work involved closing the doors and making certain everyone was out of the way before you turned it on for the first time (usually hiding behind something substantial if it looked like it could escape when the power went on! There seems to be a developing problem with R&D in as much as how do you allow it within the constraints that are being imposed. And lets not even bother thinking about drawings and documentation (revision control etc).....

Mark

Muzzer, I am taking it that you think I have a hatred of CE. I do not, it is a good idea for the things it was originally meant for especially domestic kit. The problems start when the people start making money out of doing the certification and then they get on the standards committee due to their "expertise". This then becomes a self gratifying exercise in charging for what we all did before some one required proof and certificates. CE marking production lines built by you for your own use has no place in manufacturing - all you need is HSE..... I can assure you it will stifle R&D and I say this as I have direct experience of people deciding against a project due to the red tape to be dealt with. Its easier to get a cheap machine overseas with dubious certification and forget all the grief. Or better still, just off shore the job all together and further help turn our economy into a service based economy making diddle squat.

Mark

Neil,

"the systems are all in place already. What has to change"

Exactly, We have been building production lines for years and managing happily with the HSE and the other directives, why do we suddenly need to CE mark?

As for making a dangerous packing line; sorry, I forgot to mention we are boxing spent reactor rods.... but then again that would fall under its own special controls and CE would not get a look in. On a less flippant note, how exactly can you envisage a dangerous packing line that would not be covered by existing HSE legislation (anyone remember the nice factories inspector by the way?).

Mark

Try this concept then - buy a bag filling machine a hopper and a weigh station, all ce approved. join them together in a "production line" and the whole thing then requires approval. Why would I need to approve my own line built from approved equipment?

I understand the idea about components making up a larger bit of kit but this is a production line and for your own use...... you still think it is drivel? Its mad. It is the latest proposals being floated regarding automation etc.

Mark

The latest farcical idea that building a production line from ce marked equipment then requires its own ce mark for the whole line might just get dropped.....

Mark

Dave,

I really like the graphics - none of the others do that. I also like the simplicity of use - again, the others are much harder to use unless you happen to have experience with them (which is were this subject came in).

Mark

Rather than assume (always a risky choice), why not try looking, then you would know how they compare..... it should take about the same time as it takes to type a response on here.

It is nothing like conventional simulators and at the same time very similar in operation, the graphical presentation is unique I think?

Mark

Steve posted a link to an online tool in his post 1/07/2016 11:52:02

As far as I can see it has not prompted a single response, perhaps no body could be bothered to take a look?

I did, it certainly appears to be the best example of a simple simulator I have ever seen. It took me about 3 or 4 mins to get it doing interesting stuff. It might not simulate a bulb, battery and switch (it might, I never tried?) but it is very easy to use and has building blocks that are easy to edit. It shows flows (voltage/power etc) as moving dots that change in intensity relative to each other and is very interactive. You do have to have a grasp of schematic diagrams but that is par for anything in electrics/electronics.

Take a look and forget about what constitutes beginners or advanced, this shows you visually what is occurring, just like engineers like it!

Mark

BobH had the best answer. I have a number of welders including an Oxford but I still bought one of the 250 amp inverter welders. It almost welds the job itself! I would possibly disagree about portability - it might have a strap on top to sling over your shoulder but you are not running up ladders with it there...... but the small one might be a lot lighter?

They make a small one for 13 amp use **LINK** and they provide an excellent service.

Mark

Edited By Mark C on 24/07/2016 11:54:41

I should add that I find them easier to get stable results out off as well. As Andrew mentioned, once they are working, you get off what you ask for without the need to sneak up on a dimension but you do need to take out any flexing in the machine - for me using a Boxford, that means getting the first cut on with a stop and measure to work out what is coming off!

Mark

Negative rake tools (inserted) tend to be used on tougher materials (although they work happily on soft stuff as well (for me at any rate). They do "plough" the work but they are not "blunt" in the same respect as a sharp HSS tool but they do not have an edge to them that feels sharp. They require more power due to them "folding" the chip before the fracture. They invariably have a chip breaker formed in them and runing fast and deep produce very hot "bits" of swarf if you get it right.

That insert in the film looks like it might be a "wiper" type (most of the heavy cutting negative trigon tips I use have them) and will produce a very good finish when used in the sweet spot for feed, speed, coolant and material.

Material has a massive effect on all of this, there are an awful lot of different "mild steel" stock about........

Mark

Ed, you might find what you are looking for in the pictures album I have on here. You are looking for the colourful displacement/stress analysis pictures.

Mark

PS. there was a thread on here a while back that looked at parting and how rigid everything was but cant remember when?

Martin,

1 in pulley on motor driving 4 inch on lay shaft with a 1 inch driving a 1.25 inch on the driven shaft.

So, 1"->4"/1"->1.25"

You will need a small section belt, 1 inch is a bit small even for a z section belt I think. If you need accurate speed reduction, positive drive is required - belts "always" slip and change ratio as they wear.....

Mark

Ian,

If you look at my drawing it should have all the dimensions you need to draw a copy and compare with your measurements. If it helps I can email you a dxf file that will open with the actual geometry but you need to send me a message with your email in for attachments to work (they don't allow them on here).

What I should have made a point of was that the angle is 1 degree relative to perpendicular planes for the dovetails. In other words, if they cut the dovetail with a dovetail cutter the "straight" side is just that but the cutter then travels on a taper of 1 degree for the gib side. It took me ages to realise this as I was expecting a 1 in 40 taper or some other standard machine bed taper but I kept getting the odd angle as I was measuring across the tapered faces - you have to measure them at 45 degrees (in the case of the Elliot) to get 1 degree.......

To measure the angle you really want to use rollers and a 2 axis system - perhaps slips between the rollers and perhaps a depth micrometer or vernier for the displacement down the way?

Anyway, making a new one should be easy if you set up your blank against two pegs and cut it with a dovetail cutter. Then insert some shim the correct thickness between one to give 1 degree and cut the other face.

Mark

Try this if it helps - it's the long one but it might help you

Mark