This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The contents of the Milling machine page were merged into Milling (machining) on 2013-01-29 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Could someone address copy milling, and the differences between that a a pantograph machine? Chickpeana ( talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've partially removed "Most CNC milling machines, also known as engraving machines, " I've never come across the term, but I'm not in that field so I'll leave it to others - Graibeard 12:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll put the same comment here as I put in the engraving topic. If you ask an engraver, then "engraving" is the incision of lines by essentially carving with chisels (gravers, burins), which raise a bur or chip in the process. To them, anything involving wheels and abrasives is NOT engraving. In fact, to some the term only applies to a two dimensional result - any deeper is called carving. True automated engraving machines do that very thing - they drag a chisel point across metal with a pantographic control. I'm not laying down a definition, and many in the world call cutting glass with wheels "engraving", and other things similar, rightly or wrongly. Just illuminating the point of view. To a professional engraver anything that doesn't involve a point cutting a shallow line, raising a chip in the process (as a chisel does) is NOT engraving. Jjdon ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed the title from cutters to endmills in the interests of accuracy, as endmills are what they are called by those who use, sell, produce or otherwise handles them. Ollin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.136.223 ( talk) 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Can anyone cite information supporting the suggestion that CNC machines were developed to short circuit organised labor? I suspect this in someone's subjective opinio and not fact. As a machinist, I would suspect that this was done to increase accuracy and interchangability of parts. Manually operated machines are more likely to lead to variances in product from one day to the next. Irritantno9 ( talk) 14:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
why does the Spanish version link has a star? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.98.25 ( talk) 13:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The list of "Other milling machine variants and terminology" includes the following "type":
Portical mills It has the spindle mounted in a T structure
... huh? I've searched all over, and the only instances of "portical mills" are duplicates of this page (complete with grammatical error). Is this a real type of milling machine, or just a misspelled "vertical mill"? (Note that a year and a half ago I wrote this same comment about the initial picture's caption; the caption has been changed but my comment was deleted. I'm still not sure whether there is or is not such a thing as "portical"...) -- Dan Griscom ( talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
We need a whole section started for the description of a mill. The lathe article does this well.
As a side note, I've move this sentence from back gear which can be incorporated into the section: "On a metalworking lathe or milling machine a back gear is a set of gears that reduces the spindle speed in half." Wizard191 ( talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3D milling is not described (see http://www.elektor.com/projects/profiler-pro-upgrades.957535.lynkx) aldough there is a picture of a 3D object (needs text label)
can the distinction between regular(2d/2,5d?) and 3d milling be made more clear ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.1.77 ( talk) 16:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a relatively small issue, but in the CAD/CNC comparison image shown at the top of the page, the physical part has two large holes which don't exist in the CAD version. Presumably the physical part was not actually generated from the CAD file shown... 194.126.102.99 ( talk) 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure the CNC stuff (and the picture of the CNC mill which just looks like a big block) belongs at the top of the page. A nice picture of an old-school vertical mill at work would be much more illustrative. LRT24 ( talk) 14:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Any strong reason to link to rapid prototyping or 3D printing? They're not related to milling. Wilhkar ( talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar
Should machining centers have their own article? Again? (notice the term redirects to here) Wilhkar ( talk) 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) wilhkar
This article often cites "Bridgeport-type (-style)" milling machines before it describes them. When one reaches World War I and Interwar Period, there is no reference to the reputed inventor of this type of machine, Rudolph Bannow (1897-1962). I recommend that the Bridgeport milling machine should be described with a sub-heading that gives attribution to its inventor and that the first reference to the Bridgeport-type milling machine should link further down in the article. For example, the statement, "Turret mills, like the ubiquitous Bridgeport, are generally smaller than bedmills, and are considered by some to be more versatile," should follow the explanation of what a turret mill is. Look at building the information so that the reader starts with the basics and builds to the particulars. -- User:HopsonRoad 17:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned that the term, "form factor" obscures rather than elucidates what's being described in this article. Wikipedia's description of form factor has a variety of meanings, the most relevant of which is, "the geometry of a product, especially in industrial and engineering design...." It then goes on to list applications to computers. A Google search also emphasizes computer usage. Since a reasonably literate reader, like myself, had to look up a term that is in an encyclopedia, geared for lay readers, I feel that a less specialized term should be substituted. I propose either "geometry" or "configuration." -- User:HopsonRoad 03:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Accessdate=2011-01-27. It talks about tracers, pantographs, and plaster models, yet it doesn't even mention CNC! Not to make too much of this one data point, but I'm sorry, this is just emblematic to me of how Wikipedia is kicking Britannica's ass despite anyone's counterarguments about the supposed benefits of paid editorial oversight and the supposed horrors of crowdsourcing. Guess what? Crowdsourcing is working, "free" is working, and all the rest is just jealousy and asking who moved the cheese. I'm sorry to sound like a shill with that latter reference—I know it's about as popular as talking about synergy and right-sizing—but sometimes you've got to be honest about what you see in front of your own eyes, even if people resent hearing it. — ¾-10 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The contents of the Milling machine page were merged into Milling (machining) on 2013-01-29 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Could someone address copy milling, and the differences between that a a pantograph machine? Chickpeana ( talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've partially removed "Most CNC milling machines, also known as engraving machines, " I've never come across the term, but I'm not in that field so I'll leave it to others - Graibeard 12:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll put the same comment here as I put in the engraving topic. If you ask an engraver, then "engraving" is the incision of lines by essentially carving with chisels (gravers, burins), which raise a bur or chip in the process. To them, anything involving wheels and abrasives is NOT engraving. In fact, to some the term only applies to a two dimensional result - any deeper is called carving. True automated engraving machines do that very thing - they drag a chisel point across metal with a pantographic control. I'm not laying down a definition, and many in the world call cutting glass with wheels "engraving", and other things similar, rightly or wrongly. Just illuminating the point of view. To a professional engraver anything that doesn't involve a point cutting a shallow line, raising a chip in the process (as a chisel does) is NOT engraving. Jjdon ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed the title from cutters to endmills in the interests of accuracy, as endmills are what they are called by those who use, sell, produce or otherwise handles them. Ollin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.136.223 ( talk) 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Can anyone cite information supporting the suggestion that CNC machines were developed to short circuit organised labor? I suspect this in someone's subjective opinio and not fact. As a machinist, I would suspect that this was done to increase accuracy and interchangability of parts. Manually operated machines are more likely to lead to variances in product from one day to the next. Irritantno9 ( talk) 14:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
why does the Spanish version link has a star? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.98.25 ( talk) 13:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The list of "Other milling machine variants and terminology" includes the following "type":
Portical mills It has the spindle mounted in a T structure
... huh? I've searched all over, and the only instances of "portical mills" are duplicates of this page (complete with grammatical error). Is this a real type of milling machine, or just a misspelled "vertical mill"? (Note that a year and a half ago I wrote this same comment about the initial picture's caption; the caption has been changed but my comment was deleted. I'm still not sure whether there is or is not such a thing as "portical"...) -- Dan Griscom ( talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
We need a whole section started for the description of a mill. The lathe article does this well.
As a side note, I've move this sentence from back gear which can be incorporated into the section: "On a metalworking lathe or milling machine a back gear is a set of gears that reduces the spindle speed in half." Wizard191 ( talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3D milling is not described (see http://www.elektor.com/projects/profiler-pro-upgrades.957535.lynkx) aldough there is a picture of a 3D object (needs text label)
can the distinction between regular(2d/2,5d?) and 3d milling be made more clear ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.1.77 ( talk) 16:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a relatively small issue, but in the CAD/CNC comparison image shown at the top of the page, the physical part has two large holes which don't exist in the CAD version. Presumably the physical part was not actually generated from the CAD file shown... 194.126.102.99 ( talk) 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure the CNC stuff (and the picture of the CNC mill which just looks like a big block) belongs at the top of the page. A nice picture of an old-school vertical mill at work would be much more illustrative. LRT24 ( talk) 14:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Any strong reason to link to rapid prototyping or 3D printing? They're not related to milling. Wilhkar ( talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar
Should machining centers have their own article? Again? (notice the term redirects to here) Wilhkar ( talk) 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) wilhkar
This article often cites "Bridgeport-type (-style)" milling machines before it describes them. When one reaches World War I and Interwar Period, there is no reference to the reputed inventor of this type of machine, Rudolph Bannow (1897-1962). I recommend that the Bridgeport milling machine should be described with a sub-heading that gives attribution to its inventor and that the first reference to the Bridgeport-type milling machine should link further down in the article. For example, the statement, "Turret mills, like the ubiquitous Bridgeport, are generally smaller than bedmills, and are considered by some to be more versatile," should follow the explanation of what a turret mill is. Look at building the information so that the reader starts with the basics and builds to the particulars. -- User:HopsonRoad 17:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned that the term, "form factor" obscures rather than elucidates what's being described in this article. Wikipedia's description of form factor has a variety of meanings, the most relevant of which is, "the geometry of a product, especially in industrial and engineering design...." It then goes on to list applications to computers. A Google search also emphasizes computer usage. Since a reasonably literate reader, like myself, had to look up a term that is in an encyclopedia, geared for lay readers, I feel that a less specialized term should be substituted. I propose either "geometry" or "configuration." -- User:HopsonRoad 03:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Accessdate=2011-01-27. It talks about tracers, pantographs, and plaster models, yet it doesn't even mention CNC! Not to make too much of this one data point, but I'm sorry, this is just emblematic to me of how Wikipedia is kicking Britannica's ass despite anyone's counterarguments about the supposed benefits of paid editorial oversight and the supposed horrors of crowdsourcing. Guess what? Crowdsourcing is working, "free" is working, and all the rest is just jealousy and asking who moved the cheese. I'm sorry to sound like a shill with that latter reference—I know it's about as popular as talking about synergy and right-sizing—but sometimes you've got to be honest about what you see in front of your own eyes, even if people resent hearing it. — ¾-10 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)