Real beginners questions : )
Andrew Johnston | 16/11/2010 16:37:11 |
![]() 7061 forum posts 719 photos | Peter, Just because you can feel the ridges on a surface finish, doesn't mean that the finish is inadequate. It's what is appropriate for the circumstances. If you look in my odds 'n' sods photo album there is a picture of a Rubert surface roughness scale. On the little rectangles in the bottom right, for milling and turning, the first few blocks have clearly visible ridges. I doubt the makers would have bothered to do this if those kind of finishes were not acceptable in some cases. Surface finish is as much an art as a science, which is why there are so many ways of defining it. As I've recently found out even professional machinists don't always understand it. I think it is very difficult to convey the different surface finishes via pictures. The 'fingernail' test is remarkably sensitive, which is why the Rubert scales were produced in the first place. See this link: http://www.rubert.co.uk/Comparison.htm (I don't seem to be able to post it as an actual link, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!) Regards, Andrew |
ChrisH | 16/11/2010 18:02:19 |
1023 forum posts 30 photos | As a PS to the "designer is an idiot" theme, on a ship one day we had a graduate engineer, very well qualified, far superior to us poor mortal engineers with dirty hands and boilersuits who were running the place. For his degree he had written a thesis on marine boilers.
Whilst being shown round the ship's engine room he asked what these great big blocks were, 20ft square by 20ft high each, or thereabouts. The exact dimensions are lost in time, and don't really matter. but very big lumps of kit. There were 2 of them.
That is the boilers we told him - you remember, you wrote a thesis on it................... Edited By ChrisH on 16/11/2010 18:03:59 |
Stub Mandrel | 16/11/2010 21:25:18 |
![]() 4318 forum posts 291 photos 1 articles | One irritating bit of poor design. The Mondeo had a small tube taking coolant from the front to the back of the engine, underneath exposed to all salt spray, road grit etc. Galvanised mild steel. Apparently my experience of the tube rusting through from the outside and dumping all the coolant on the road in a few seconds was 'normal behaviour' for a Mondeo of its moderate mileage. Neil |
Andrew Johnston | 17/11/2010 11:36:31 |
![]() 7061 forum posts 719 photos | Hi Ian, Blimey, 0.2" DOC on steel! I'm obviously being a big girls blouse when it comes to roughing cuts on the lathe. What sort of speeds and feedrates are you running at that DOC? And how many horses power your lathe? Regards, Andrew |
Sam Stones | 17/11/2010 19:11:50 |
![]() 922 forum posts 332 photos |
For the benefit of an ignoramus who no longer has the books, what’s a DOC?
Regards, Sam |
Nicholas Farr | 17/11/2010 19:25:54 |
![]() 3988 forum posts 1799 photos | Hi Sam, I'm taking it to mean Depth Of Cut.
Regards Nick. |
Peter G. Shaw | 17/11/2010 19:40:03 |
![]() 1531 forum posts 44 photos | Andrew, Thanks for that, and yes, I do understand about horses for courses. Now, back to the comments about poor design, I have three examples of what I would consider to be well engineered designs. One was a Bendix washing machine which ran for 17 years without any major problems until the alloy spider which supports the drum corroded until it became so weak that it collapsed. It's predecessor lasted 5 years before becoming uneconomic to repair. This machine I should add was hammered by our bringing up three children. The second is a Mitsubishi TV bought in 1992. At 6 months old it had water from a vase poured into it, but swift application of a wet & dry vacuum cleaner followed by the use of a hot air gun and it lasted a further 17 years without a problem. Then it needed a capacitor change to restore full functionality. Just recently, a further two capacitors have failed and been replaced to restore full working. Total cost about £1 for all three capacitors. But, interestingly, all three capacitors were on a sub-board which required the removal of six or seven plugs, two screws and two clips to take it away to a place of comfortable working. Now that to me is good thinking. The third is my H68V Black & Decker mains drill bought in 1986. It has been used for a lot of heavy work - masonry drilling, steel drilling, wood drilling etc, and it wasn't until last year that it suffered it's first failure - a short pin about 12mm long and 4mm wide. I looked at buying a replacement, but the prices for one of a similar specification - 400W+, electronic trigger controller, and a 2-speed mechanical gearbox - were astronomical. Replacement pins not being available, I made one myself - and it now works again. Previous drills simply did not last. Peter G. Shaw |
Sam Stones | 17/11/2010 21:31:37 |
![]() 922 forum posts 332 photos | Oh sHOnet !!!
How obvious! Clearly, only an ignoramus would ask such a question. Especially one who’s been applying DOC’s for about 65 years without knowing it. AND worst still, one who has been surrounded by plastics acronyms since 1950. Perhaps for us oldies (who, like me, are too lazy to work them out), ME could collect and build a useful acronym glossary? Thanks for coming to my rescue Nick! Regards, Sam Edited By Sam Stones on 17/11/2010 21:32:55 |
NJH | 17/11/2010 22:56:40 |
![]() 2314 forum posts 139 photos |
Hey Sam
Be easy on yourself - the only ignoramus is the one who doesn't ask the question!
(Now I knew about this as I used the DOC the other day for a FLU .)
regards
Norman
Edited By NJH on 17/11/2010 22:57:49 |
Adam McCullough | 17/11/2010 23:26:58 |
10 forum posts |
Regarding graduate Engineers, I agree to a large extent with the observations made above.
I successfully finished my Masters in Engineering at Oxford six years ago, having worked extremely hard to do so. The course is considered one of the toughest degrees you can do, anywhere and in any subject, and from my experiences with other young Engineers since then I'm convinced that it comfortably surpasses in breadth and depth all but perhaps a dozen other Engineering courses in the UK.
However, the truth is that a good Engineering degree now is 95% hard, hard maths and the student is only given a basic grounding in the practical fields of application of the skills they've learned. It is assumed that you'll be smart enough to find your way from there.
Unfortunately this approach produces thousands of people like me! As a fresh graduate I could have derived and solved the equations that govern, for example, multicylinder engine balancing or video noise shaping or high frequency digital switching or the layout of reinforcing fibres in a composite panel or magnetic resonance imaging. But if you stood us in front of a real engine most of my fellow graduates wouldn't have known where to start.
Some things were, I think, done nicely. I started my first year in the drawing office and wasn't allowed to progress until I'd completed a large number of exercises and convinced the tutor that I could communicate with pen and paper. Only then was I allowed into the CAD lab, and so on.
But I did precious little "real" mechanical design-build-test work in all the time I was there. We made 20" model bridges (sheet alloy and pop rivets) and squashed them in a large press (mine weighed about 1.5kg and bore well over 1t in shear - I've still got it at home). I made and squashed a cantilevered steel beam (spot welded MS sheet), some reinforced concrete beams and columns, an axial compressor, a vacuum nozzle, a torsion bar suspension, some sliding, press and shrink fit test pieces in brass and steel on the lathe, a few other test pieces on the milling machine, we did some basic heat treatment and press forging and that's about all I can remember. Anything but the most rudimentary workshop skills just were not part of the course, and mechanical was only one amongst many modules; there are similar lists of small projects in electronic, software, thermodynamics, fluids etc. not to mention the 25-30 odd hours a week of straight-up maths.
I think the simple fact is that Engineering graduates nowadays are not trained to be able to independently design and create a physical solution; we are trained to analyse and solve complex technical problems on paper. Doubtless there are good reasons behind this, but there are also unfortunate consequences as several here have observed. Detaching us from the nuts and bolts of the matter can leave many unable to properly visualise how real physical objects are created and interact. I'm better than most purely because I like making things with my hands, but I'm still privately a little in awe of one of my girlfriend's relatives who finished his toolmaking apprenticeship a year or so ago (with receipt of a national award for the same) and has probably already forgotten more than I'll ever know about metalwork!
Adam
Edited By Adam McCullough on 17/11/2010 23:30:45 |
Ian S C | 18/11/2010 01:26:27 |
![]() 7468 forum posts 230 photos | Sorry Andrew, that should be .200" off dia/ .100" DOC, Hp 1 1/2 Taiwanese hp, 240rpm. The cross slide dial reads diameter, was suprised when I did a jod on a friends Myford and found its dial read DOC, put on .020, and started , hell that seems an awful deep cut.I think the feed rate is.0035"/rev. Ian S C ps remember at school watching in awe as the Chipmaster easily took off .500 DOC no trouble, with great coils of blue steel going every were, us kid were only allowed to watch. Edited By Ian S C on 18/11/2010 01:32:24 |
Sam Stones | 18/11/2010 03:36:33 |
![]() 922 forum posts 332 photos |
Adam’s posting is to be commended, so "Well done, Adam!" The fact is, unless we can demonstrate our competence as a genius, or have become a professional student, there probably isn’t enough time in our lives to qualify in `Everything’. In spite of my part-time study occupying all of fifteen years, sliced into two by National Service, I was (let’s say) `lucky enough’ to serve a six year toolmaking apprenticeship before I landed my ambition of becoming a draughtsman. I didn’t really enjoy the higher mathematics which came as an essential impediment(?), granting us a better understanding of beam theory or allowing us to weave and manoeuvre our way through engineering proofs.
As time went by, I was also lucky enough to begin mixing with people at all levels. Bog mechanics to CEO’s, there was always something to learn, or someone to learn from. Now, with anecdotes galore, I could easily write books full of the stuff.
Before clockin-off, one of my favourites stems from when, as a fairly recently promoted technical service officer smartly dressed for the occasion, I was `advised’ by the works manager of a plastics factory as he dashed past me that :- "All your theory goes down the drain in this factory, you know!?" With his overcoat flapping in his slip-stream, this manager had blustered past me about half a dozen times on his way to and from his office. Presumably that was necessary to keep the wheels turning? But, how did he know that I was an academic, or anything else about me for that matter? Soon after his startling revelation, the moulding machine `jammed’. Then, as if it were standard practice, four or five of his operators took hold and began swinging on a long length of 6x4 timber, trying to free the machine. That was the moment when it was pertinent for me to leave discretely, wondering if a drain had blocked. Now, at least, I know what DOC means! Thanks again Nick. Ian (S C), The penny has just dropped on another `strange’ event, and (Norman), the reason that DOC went straight over my head.
I didn’t know that some lathes are graduated for "off diameter", as opposed to DOC.
While using a toolmaker friend’s lathe a few weeks ago, (when I was machining the bell of my skeleton clock), the coordinates I had generated for the spherical surface were producing the wrong profile. Now I can see the error of my ways having, (without knowing it), only ever used DOC. Luckily, he had a spherical turning attachment, but until now, I haven’t understood where my error had occurred.
So would OD = OFF DIAMETER? Or am I entitled to accept that it’s still short for OUTSIDE DIAMETER? By the way, watch out for those big coils of blue steel. They have been known to find their way inside trousers. Is a FLU wot smoke guzup?
Regards to all,
Sam |
Andrew Johnston | 18/11/2010 11:47:18 |
![]() 7061 forum posts 719 photos | Ian: Pheweeee; had me worried there for a moment. For roughing on 2" diameter soft steel I'll use around 370rpm, 0.1" DOC and 0.01"/rev feedrate. That gives a power required at the tool of 2.3hp; my lathe is a nominal 3hp. Certainly makes the motor change note! Sam: I concur that OD means outside diameter; at least it's not one of those annoying TLAs Adam: Welcome to the forum and congratulations on your academic success; even if it was at the 'other place'. Having supervised undergraduates for the Cambridge Tripos I can confirm that the Tripos is also heavily mathematical. I might be inclined to say that, to some extent, any situation amenable to a closed analytic solution probably wasn't worth analysing in the first place. ![]() One thing that doesn't seem to be taught are the real aspects of engineering design, which include: You've got X time to get it designed It has to cost less than Y We've only got 32 slots on the assembly machine, so you can only use 32 different components We can't get that part or material in the time available, use something else We just moved the goalposts - it gets much more 'interesting' when the shape of ball, and hence the whole set of game rules, gets changed Ain't engineering fun! ![]() Regards, Andrew Edited By Andrew Johnston on 18/11/2010 11:47:47 |
Adam McCullough | 18/11/2010 14:48:42 |
10 forum posts |
Posted by Andrew Johnston on 18/11/2010 11:47:18:
Adam: Welcome to the forum and congratulations on your academic success; even if it was at the 'other place'. Having supervised undergraduates for the Cambridge Tripos I can confirm that the Tripos is also heavily mathematical.
I might be inclined to say that, to some extent, any situation amenable to a closed analytic solution probably wasn't worth analysing in the first place.
![]() One thing that doesn't seem to be taught are the real aspects of engineering design
Thanks Andrew! Of course from my point of view it's the Tabs who went to the "other place" Regardless, there are good reasons why Cambridge and Imperial are considered Oxford's superiors where Engineering is concerned. I have many Fenland friends and have even helped a couple out with their Vacation work on occasion!
Regarding analytic solutions and real life Engineering, I'm reminded of something one of my tutors battered into us in my first year; it went roughly as follows:
One major difference between an Engineer and a physicist or a mathematician or any other pure scientist is that there are times when it is reasonable to state that there is no calculable solution to a scientific problem, due to lack of a suitable method, lack of information or simple mathematical impracticality of calculating the correct solution. An Engineer usually has no such luxury, and must therefore constantly decide where to approximate, what factors are significant and indeed when to find a clever way to change the domain or avoid the problem entirely. Our job is to find a decent, workable, efficient solution in a reasonable timeframe and within the constraints of the job, rather than to provide the theoretically "correct" answer...
And on a similar note:
Art and science have their meeting point in method.
-- Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Adam
Edited By Adam McCullough on 18/11/2010 14:55:05 |
Stub Mandrel | 19/11/2010 19:31:50 |
![]() 4318 forum posts 291 photos 1 articles | Having some kowledge of what goes on in microprocessor software design, it's much the same. Computer science courses teach the proper way to do things, and advocate C. The real experts know when to drop into assembler and use some mighty fine tricks to shave off a few critical clock cycles. Neil |
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.
You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.