I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would care
to share for making one. In the past I have made "special" angle blocks
that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular angle. It has
a clearance where the edge of the part is located assuring burrs, dings,
and chamfers have little or no affect in the location of the edge in
relationship to the angle block. This allows me to
indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math to tell
me where that edge is. It works, but its cludgy, requires some math (or
cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the location of the
exposed edge.

Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made. It is basically a
cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its central
axis. Then 1/4 of the round if machined away. When its placed over the
exposed edge it can be probed to find center and height of the edge more
easily than my previous method. In addition it doesn't matter what
angle the work piece is mounted at to find that edge. It should work
for most work piece angles of any angle between 90 and 0 where the
widest point of the tool is accessible with the probe or edge finder.
Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.

P.S. Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
the first one to think of it. Does this tool have a proper name?

--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 27/02/2023 21:36, Bob La Londe wrote:
> I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would care
> to share for making one.  In the past I have made "special" angle
> blocks that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular
> angle.  It has a clearance where the edge of the part is located
> assuring burrs, dings, and chamfers have little or no affect in the
> location of the edge in relationship to the angle block.  This allows
> me to indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math
> to tell me where that edge is.  It works, but its cludgy, requires
> some math (or cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the
> location of the exposed edge.
>
> Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made.  It is basically a
> cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its
> central axis.  Then 1/4 of the round if machined away.  When its
> placed over the exposed edge it can be probed to find center and
> height of the edge more easily than my previous method.  In addition
> it doesn't matter what angle the work piece is mounted at to find that
> edge.  It should work for most work piece angles of any angle between
> 90 and 0 where the widest point of the tool is accessible with the
> probe or edge finder. Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
>
> P.S.  Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
> the first one to think of it.  Does this tool have a proper name?
>
>
>
The sort of thing shown here
https://www.ctemag.com/news/articles/clever-tools-finding-edge . I could
do with one of those.

On 2/27/2023 3:15 PM, David Billington wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 21:36, Bob La Londe wrote:
>> I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would care
>> to share for making one.  In the past I have made "special" angle
>> blocks that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular
>> angle.  It has a clearance where the edge of the part is located
>> assuring burrs, dings, and chamfers have little or no affect in the
>> location of the edge in relationship to the angle block.  This allows
>> me to indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math
>> to tell me where that edge is.  It works, but its cludgy, requires
>> some math (or cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the
>> location of the exposed edge.
>>
>> Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made.  It is basically a
>> cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its
>> central axis.  Then 1/4 of the round if machined away.  When its
>> placed over the exposed edge it can be probed to find center and
>> height of the edge more easily than my previous method.  In addition
>> it doesn't matter what angle the work piece is mounted at to find that
>> edge.  It should work for most work piece angles of any angle between
>> 90 and 0 where the widest point of the tool is accessible with the
>> probe or edge finder. Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
>>
>> P.S.  Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
>> the first one to think of it.  Does this tool have a proper name?
>>
>>
>>
> The sort of thing shown here
> https://www.ctemag.com/news/articles/clever-tools-finding-edge . I could
> do with one of those.
>

Yep. I was thinking plane round (using some TGP stock on hand), but
that's the basic idea.
--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:ttjahk$3c2v5$1@dont-email.me...

-------------------

Here is another version:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Machinists/comments/8342ay/edgefinding_with_coax_indicator/

On 27/02/2023 23:27, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Bob La Londe"  wrote in message news:ttjahk$3c2v5$1@dont-email.me...
>
> -------------------
>
> Here is another version:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Machinists/comments/8342ay/edgefinding_with_coax_indicator/
>
>
That looks to be what is being described in this video but another
design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGOkwdJB6T0 .

On 2/27/2023 4:27 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Bob La Londe"  wrote in message news:ttjahk$3c2v5$1@dont-email.me...
>
> -------------------
>
> Here is another version:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Machinists/comments/8342ay/edgefinding_with_coax_indicator/
>

I've designed one of those before for rapid probing corners in flat
orientation with a touch probe. Just do a center find routine and you
have the corner.

--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 27/02/2023 21:36, Bob La Londe wrote:
> I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would care
> to share for making one.  In the past I have made "special" angle
> blocks that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular
> angle.  It has a clearance where the edge of the part is located
> assuring burrs, dings, and chamfers have little or no affect in the
> location of the edge in relationship to the angle block.  This allows
> me to indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math
> to tell me where that edge is.  It works, but its cludgy, requires
> some math (or cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the
> location of the exposed edge.
>
> Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made.  It is basically a
> cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its
> central axis.  Then 1/4 of the round if machined away.  When its
> placed over the exposed edge it can be probed to find center and
> height of the edge more easily than my previous method.  In addition
> it doesn't matter what angle the work piece is mounted at to find that
> edge.  It should work for most work piece angles of any angle between
> 90 and 0 where the widest point of the tool is accessible with the
> probe or edge finder. Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
>
> P.S.  Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
> the first one to think of it.  Does this tool have a proper name?
>
>
>
Is this what you were looking at before
https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
.. Although potentially easy to make I'm surprised I haven't seen a
commercial offering yet.

On 2/27/2023 5:16 PM, David Billington wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 21:36, Bob La Londe wrote:
>> I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would care
>> to share for making one.  In the past I have made "special" angle
>> blocks that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular
>> angle.  It has a clearance where the edge of the part is located
>> assuring burrs, dings, and chamfers have little or no affect in the
>> location of the edge in relationship to the angle block.  This allows
>> me to indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math
>> to tell me where that edge is.  It works, but its cludgy, requires
>> some math (or cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the
>> location of the exposed edge.
>>
>> Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made.  It is basically a
>> cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its
>> central axis.  Then 1/4 of the round if machined away.  When its
>> placed over the exposed edge it can be probed to find center and
>> height of the edge more easily than my previous method.  In addition
>> it doesn't matter what angle the work piece is mounted at to find that
>> edge.  It should work for most work piece angles of any angle between
>> 90 and 0 where the widest point of the tool is accessible with the
>> probe or edge finder. Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
>>
>> P.S.  Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
>> the first one to think of it.  Does this tool have a proper name?
>>
>>
>>
> Is this what you were looking at before
> https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
> . Although potentially easy to make I'm surprised I haven't seen a
> commercial offering yet.
>

Yeah, that was probably it. I finished making mine and I blew one of
the dimensions by more than I am willing to call tolerance. I'll remake
it tomorrow.

--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

"David Billington" wrote in message news:ttjh47$3creb$1@dont-email.me...

Although potentially easy to make I'm surprised I haven't seen a
commercial offering yet.

-------------------------
Google found "chair" edge finders that use the same principle.
https://www.amazon.com/Flexbar-Magnetic-Single-Edge-Finder/dp/B001CTIG18

Unless the work blank has been surface ground I zero on the edges of a 1-2-3
block and use however the blank fits against the fixed jaw and end stop as
its 0,0 corner. It's at least repeatable.

I found one of these in an antique furniture store for initially grinding a
square reference corner.
https://www.aloktools.com/product/precision-v-block-and-clamp-all-angle/

Sometimes tool boxes show up when he buys estate contents. He saves the
woodworking tools for furniture repairs and wall hangers but has no
knowledge of or clientele for the pre-CNC machinist tools, except me.

A corner finder made with dowel pins in bored holes would eliminate possible
error from a tool change or runout. It should be as accurate as your DRO.

On 2/28/2023 5:29 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "David Billington"  wrote in message news:ttjh47$3creb$1@dont-email.me...
>
> Although potentially easy to make I'm surprised I haven't seen a
> commercial offering yet.
>
> -------------------------
> Google found "chair" edge finders that use the same principle.
> https://www.amazon.com/Flexbar-Magnetic-Single-Edge-Finder/dp/B001CTIG18
>

A chair edge finder and the center corner finder you showed earlier seem
to me to be mostly for finding the edge/corner of a rectanguloid work
piece clamped parallel to the table. Either in a vise or other clamping
setup. The tool in the video link David posted is exactly what I need
(and made badly yesterday). Its for indicating in an edge of a
rectanguloid that is significantly not parallel to the table. Its not
necessarily super precise as the Z height is established by touching
off, but an indicator or even a cylindrical indicator can get you pretty
darn close with the 1/2 method. I've done it in the past with job
specific shop made angle plates and indicated off the angle plate held
to the vise with magnets, but it has a couple flaws. If the thickness
is variable from piece to piece or unknown I have to take a measurement
and do one more piece of math. By using the cylinder on an exposed edge
I can just indicate and zero. Further more I only need one for many
mounting angles instead of making a new angle plate for every new angle.

> Unless the work blank has been surface ground I zero on the edges of a
> 1-2-3 block and use however the blank fits against the fixed jaw and end
> stop as its 0,0 corner. It's at least repeatable.

Work stop and vise jaw is pretty good for flatish squarish pieces. I've
both made and purchased table mounted work stops, and have them for
"almost" every mill in the shop. I also have pieces for several more of
the articulating variety on the assembly bench waiting on back side
machining when I have a chance. I generally prefer table mounted over
vise mounted as they can remain in place and move out of the way at the
same time maintain "pretty good" part location. Shop blocks get used
for so many things I've lost track. One of the most common is making a
batch of "identical" molds where it would be convenient to have a
consistent thickness from part to part and day to day. I use a 123
block with my height setter on the fixture. The I calculate the final
thickness based on the bottom of the part instead of the top. I still
have a top zero, but is relative to the fixture instead of the work piece.

>
> I found one of these in an antique furniture store for initially
> grinding a square reference corner.
> https://www.aloktools.com/product/precision-v-block-and-clamp-all-angle/
>

There was one of those in the tools, fixtures, etc of my grandfather's
that my dad passed on to me. I've only used it once, but at the time it
was the only tool I had that would do the job.

> Sometimes tool boxes show up when he buys estate contents. He saves the
> woodworking tools for furniture repairs and wall hangers but has no
> knowledge of or clientele for the pre-CNC machinist tools, except me.

Sounds like a great arrangement. I hope he gets front of the line
treatment when he needs something machined.

>
> A corner finder made with dowel pins in bored holes would eliminate
> possible error from a tool change or runout. It should be as accurate as
> your DRO.
>

For manual edge finding I usually use the cut and go method or a
rotating clicker type edge finder. The clicker gets me close, then I
bump out and back slower. I don't know how "accurate" I am with it, but
its very repeatable. I can get a higher degree of accuracy with an
indicator and a gage block if I need to.

The corner finder like you linked earlier is for electronic probing
quickly on the CNC for me, but of course an indicator in/on the spindle
or a coaxial would also work with it.

A dowel pin corner tool would be pretty easy to make on the CNC mills.
Good enough for wood workers anyway. LOL. The advantage would be they
can be made in a single setup reducing tolerance stacking issues.

--
Bob La Londe
Proffessional Hack, Hobbyist, Wannabe, Shade Tree, Button Pushing, Not a
real machinist

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

When I've sent odd-shaped designs to a machine shop they left orthogonal
reference surfaces on the blank as long as possible.

On 2/28/2023 11:32 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> When I've sent odd-shaped designs to a machine shop they left orthogonal
> reference surfaces on the blank as long as possible.
>

You're picking on me for saying rectanguloid right? LOL

--
Bob La Londe
Proffessional Hack, Hobbyist, Wannabe, Shade Tree, Button Pushing, Not a
real machinist

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:ttlk9h$3mb5g$1@dont-email.me...

On 2/28/2023 11:32 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> When I've sent odd-shaped designs to a machine shop they left orthogonal
> reference surfaces on the blank as long as possible.
>

You're picking on me for saying rectanguloid right? LOL

Bob La Londe
------------------------------------------

Absotively not, I was in Mensa where conflating words is a respected art
form. I make up words all the time, then Google them and find that someone
else beat me. Can you use it in a logical sentence along with with Phugoid
(a real word)?

In rec.aviation.military a couple of us had fun extending a fake German
word, Versuchsunterwasserflugzeugtraeger, an experimental submarine aircraft
carrier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

We never stretched it as far as this classic compounded word:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizit%C3%A4tenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft
A German pointed out that such long words were then abbreviated into short
ones, i.e. Kapitaenleutnant (ship's captain) became Kaleun.

A Bavarian expletive:
Himmiherrgotzaggramentzefixallelujamilextamarschscheissglumpfaregtz!!!

In TV writing the general term for fake technical words that are hard for
actors to pronounce is Phlebotinum. A "Buffy" writer invented the word, but
the idea had been used earlier to torment Star Trek's Dr Crusher.

On 2/28/2023 5:31 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Bob La Londe"  wrote in message news:ttlk9h$3mb5g$1@dont-email.me...
>
> On 2/28/2023 11:32 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> When I've sent odd-shaped designs to a machine shop they left
>> orthogonal reference surfaces on the blank as long as possible.
>>
>
> You're picking on me for saying rectanguloid right?  LOL
>
> Bob La Londe
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Absotively not, I was in Mensa

Between kintergarden and 1st grade somebody gave me an IQ test. Many
years later I was told (third hand) they had never seen a higher score
for my age. I remember the test, but nobody told me it was an IQ test.
I knew some of the answers, figured out some of the answers, and just
guessed at the rest. Most of them I guessed at. I guess I guessed
correctly on a lot of those guesses.

Having struggled with some things I thought should have been easy for
somebody of my statuesque intellect I took an IQ test on my own in my
late 20s. I was not a staggering genius. Mensa might have allowed me to
hang around, but only grudgingly. I guess the assessment of my
intellect might have been followed an up and down path at varying speeds
depending on the current inclination. One might say it was a fugoid
about a rectanguloid coming back from whence it began.

P.S. I do not believe the temporal scholastic gain of being promoted
out of your grade into a higher grade (twice for me) outweighs the
benefit of social development with peers of your own age. I didn't do a
damn thing useful with those two years gained.

where conflating words is a respected art
> form. I make up words all the time, then Google them and find that
> someone else beat me. Can you use it in a logical sentence along with
> with Phugoid (a real word)?
>
> In rec.aviation.military a couple of us had fun extending a fake German
> word, Versuchsunterwasserflugzeugtraeger, an experimental submarine
> aircraft carrier.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
>
> We never stretched it as far as this classic compounded word:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizit%C3%A4tenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft
> A German pointed out that such long words were then abbreviated into
> short ones, i.e. Kapitaenleutnant (ship's captain) became Kaleun.
>
> A Bavarian expletive:
> Himmiherrgotzaggramentzefixallelujamilextamarschscheissglumpfaregtz!!!
>
> In TV writing the general term for fake technical words that are hard
> for actors to pronounce is Phlebotinum. A "Buffy" writer invented the
> word, but the idea had been used earlier to torment Star Trek's Dr Crusher.
>

--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:ttmd2c$3ojau$1@dont-email.me...

On 2/28/2023 5:31 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> Absotively not, I was in Mensa

Between kintergarden and 1st grade somebody gave me an IQ test. Many
years later I was told (third hand) they had never seen a higher score
for my age.

--------------------

I claim that I got in by lying about my age. My parents wouldn't tell me
what my score was. IQ scores never came up in discussions, they were more
likely laments about how intelligence alone doesn't guarantee success, or
random wanderings as I sometimes do here, perhaps while batting balloons to
the kids within the circle.

During economic downturns a large percentage of Mensans were unemployed, and
didn't care or need to change our generally frugal lifestyles. One of then
was the caterer I worked for at the Renaissance Faire. Another ran a
laundromat. I meet interesting and very highly educated people selling stuff
at flea markets. The founder of this was previously an aerospace engineer:
https://www.warmlite.com/
A common thread seems to be self-reliant independence and unconcern for
social status.

I badly twisted my ankle on a joint NH-MA Mensa mountain climb. The person
who drove me to a nearby hospital was Head of Emergency Services at a large
Boston hospital, but he wasn't licensed in NH. He was upset about being
associated with the rustic crutch I had lashed together, though the doctor
who saw me camped in northern Canada and loved it.

>One might say it was a fugoid about a rectanguloid coming back from whence
>it began.

Congrats, you did it. I would have compared the phugoid oscillation between
kinetic and potential energy to tool chatter.

>P.S. I do not believe the temporal scholastic gain of being promoted out
>of your grade into a higher grade (twice for me) outweighs the benefit of
>social development with peers of your own age. I didn't do a damn thing
>useful with those two years gained.

I got into AP classes at the same time as moving to a new school, and found
the AP students accepting of outsiders since they were themselves. Theatre
people were particularly tolerant since they are very much outsiders. As I
was part of the tech crew instead of the talent they put up with my more
'normative' behavior. The contrast with reserved, introverted chemistry
students was extreme, and I think a useful exposure to those who act on
feelings instead of thoughts, since the script writer had already done the
thinking.
https://www.betterup.com/blog/code-switching

Elon Musk's Twitter activity resembles a pun-filled Mensa discussion.

"What do you call an infinite gear ratio?
All torque, no action."

On 2/27/2023 2:36 PM, Bob La Londe wrote:
> I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would care
> to share for making one.  In the past I have made "special" angle blocks
> that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular angle.  It has
> a clearance where the edge of the part is located assuring burrs, dings,
> and chamfers have little or no affect in the location of the edge in
> relationship to the angle block.  This allows me to
> indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math to tell
> me where that edge is.  It works, but its cludgy, requires some math (or
> cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the location of the
> exposed edge.
>
> Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made.  It is basically a
> cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its central
> axis.  Then 1/4 of the round if machined away.  When its placed over the
> exposed edge it can be probed to find center and height of the edge more
> easily than my previous method.  In addition it doesn't matter what
> angle the work piece is mounted at to find that edge.  It should work
> for most work piece angles of any angle between 90 and 0 where the
> widest point of the tool is accessible with the probe or edge finder. Of
> course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
>
> P.S.  Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
> the first one to think of it.  Does this tool have a proper name?
>
>
>

Anyway, I made the tool. It took me three tries to get one that was
marginally okay. By okay I mean its got under 1 thou taper on each
face, but its within half thousandth of dimension along its length.
That means if I touch off near center it should be within a few tenths.
Far better than the clicker I used to locate off of it. 4 of the 8
holes have been drilled. Now I need to touch off and double check
center and zero from the other end to drill the other 4 holes. The
pilot is a stub length 1/16 (.0625) solid carbide drill. Then finish to
size with a longer HSS drill.

I blame the taper on my cheap Chinese mill vise. I probed the bed once
and it was a couple thousandths out of flat along its nominal 8 inch
width.Most times I use machined step jaws, but for this I set the collet
block on the bed of the vise. I figured for the nominal 1 inch length
of my tool it would be tolerable. It was, but just barely. Normally I
use machined in place step jaws in that vise. Its just a bit to big to
fit on my tiny 6x12 surface grinder.

The hard part was measuring it, and its why I badly hosed the first two.
A replaceable anvil micrometer might have been able to reach past
center, but I don't have one. I tried a caliper but my measurements
were all over the place. Finally I did something I do not like doing.
I took the collet block out of the vise to measure the flat with a
height gage on the surface plate. I don't like multiple setups on parts
if its at all avoidable. Every time you put it back you have another
chance to screw it up when you screw it down.

I guess next I have to deburr those tiny holes in each plate before
continuing on with the next step at the end of paragraph one.

Here is a picture showing the application on the Maker's & Builders
group on Facebook. I do not believe you need to log on to see it.Try
not to have to big of a laugh at my crazy setup. Okay go ahead. Laugh.
The angle blocks turned out to be a good idea. The stack up in the
vise had the mold plate off by a full degree from its protractor.
Assuming those cheap import angle blocks are accurate. LOL.

https://tinyurl.com/edgetool1

.... and if you don't trust the hidden tiny url here is the full URl.

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/334305885_3508467622709773_8540884480464759033_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=ebJeFY-Q2DcAX_IDRyM&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-2.xx&oh=00_AfD6G14ocqNRsIySPvnx52X7itxd7u9UiNdabqzOOHTaHQ&oe=640556F9

If you happen to be on FB, here is the link to it in the group. I do
not think you have to be logged in to see it this way either. You do
have to join the group to post or comment.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=6329813090376689&set=pcb.1408314123040199

--
Bob La Londe
Proffessional Hack, Hobbyist, Wannabe, Shade Tree, Button Pushing, Not a
real machinist

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tto09u$ees$1@dont-email.me...

The hard part was measuring it, and its why I badly hosed the first two.
A replaceable anvil micrometer might have been able to reach past
center, but I don't have one. ...
----------------
The 1" Mitutoyo Uni-Mike will, the outer edge of the spindle face can be
centered on up to a 1" circle.

On 3/2/2023 4:24 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Bob La Londe"  wrote in message news:tto09u$ees$1@dont-email.me...
>
> The hard part was measuring it, and its why I badly hosed the first two.
>  A replaceable anvil micrometer might have been able to reach past
> center, but I don't have one.  ...
> ----------------
> The 1" Mitutoyo Uni-Mike will, the outer edge of the spindle face can be
> centered on up to a 1" circle.
>

Yep, exactly the type pf mic I was thinking of. I would have still had
to take the block out of the vise unless I side milled the dimension.
Buy end milling the dimension I was able to exhibit my inner cheapness
and use a used mill.

--
Bob La Londe
Proffessional Hack, Hobbyist, Wannabe, Shade Tree, Button Pushing, Not a
real machinist

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:ttvrae$10tnd$1@dont-email.me...

On 3/2/2023 4:24 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tto09u$ees$1@dont-email.me...
>
> The hard part was measuring it, and its why I badly hosed the first two.
> A replaceable anvil micrometer might have been able to reach past
> center, but I don't have one. ...
> ----------------
> The 1" Mitutoyo Uni-Mike will, the outer edge of the spindle face can be
> centered on up to a 1" circle.
>

Yep, exactly the type pf mic I was thinking of. I would have still had
to take the block out of the vise unless I side milled the dimension.
Buy end milling the dimension I was able to exhibit my inner cheapness
and use a used mill.

Bob La Londe
Proffessional Hack, Hobbyist, Wannabe, Shade Tree, Button Pushing, Not a
real machinist

-----------------------

In case my brief description was unclear, it could measure the height (the
radius) of a quadrant milled from a cylinder of up to 1" diameter. With the
spindle outer edge at the center the toe of the anvil clamping surface just
touches a 1" cylinder and clears a 3/4" one. I checked with the center
cutoff tool pip of rod stock.

On 3/4/2023 10:59 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Bob La Londe"  wrote in message news:ttvrae$10tnd$1@dont-email.me...
>
> On 3/2/2023 4:24 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Bob La Londe"  wrote in message news:tto09u$ees$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> The hard part was measuring it, and its why I badly hosed the first two.
>>   A replaceable anvil micrometer might have been able to reach past
>> center, but I don't have one.  ...
>> ----------------
>> The 1" Mitutoyo Uni-Mike will, the outer edge of the spindle face can
>> be centered on up to a 1" circle.
>>
>
> Yep, exactly the type pf mic I was thinking of.   I would have still had
> to take the block out of the vise unless I side milled the dimension.
> Buy end milling the dimension I was able to exhibit my inner cheapness
> and use a used mill.
>
> Bob La Londe
> Proffessional Hack, Hobbyist, Wannabe, Shade Tree, Button Pushing, Not a
> real machinist
>
> -----------------------
>
> In case my brief description was unclear, it could measure the height
> (the radius) of a quadrant milled from a cylinder of up to 1" diameter.
> With the spindle outer edge at the center the toe of the anvil clamping
> surface just touches a 1" cylinder and clears a 3/4" one. I checked with
> the center cutoff tool pip of rod stock.
>
>
The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the
center bore (to reach past center). I'd have to raise the vise or mount
the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that. LOL. To be
fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that
style mic either.

--
Bob La Londe
Proffessional Hack, Hobbyist, Wannabe, Shade Tree, Button Pushing, Not a
real machinist

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu019a$11bht$2@dont-email.me...

The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the
center bore (to reach past center). I'd have to raise the vise or mount
the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that. LOL. To be
fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that
style mic either.

Bob La Londe

---------------------

I lost you. Wasn't the goal to measure if the quadrant cutout had been
milled exactly to the center, horizontally and vertically?
https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
He used a gage block to measure it. I assumed you would have if you owned
one, and simply tested the Uni-Mike's capability.

On 3/4/2023 3:03 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Bob La Londe"  wrote in message news:tu019a$11bht$2@dont-email.me...
>
> The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the
> center bore (to reach past center).  I'd have to raise the vise or mount
> the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that.  LOL.  To be
> fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that
> style mic either.
>
> Bob La Londe
>
> ---------------------
>
> I lost you. Wasn't the goal to measure if the quadrant cutout had been
> milled exactly to the center, horizontally and vertically?
> https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
> He used a gage block to measure it. I assumed you would have if you
> owned one, and simply tested the Uni-Mike's capability.
>

****Ultimately you can get better cuts by ->NOT<- dismounting and
remounting the part you are making multiple times. While it may be
possible it increases the chance of operator induced error
exponentially.****

Yes, I did take the part out to measure it. I used a height gage. The
same one I use for measuring tool heights in tool holders for the CNC
mills. By touching the TGP round surface and zeroing you can a quite
accurate measurement. (I'm pretty sure I mentioned i started with a
piece of TGP rod) The funny part here is I could have used that method
in place on the mill, but I had already dismounted the part once. The
mill table being pretty new is quite good enough. My results might have
been better.

Since I cut it to final dimensions as stated by end milling and ->NOT<-
side milling for practical reasons I could not measure it with the mic
you and I both thought of without taking it out of the vise or by boring
a large hole in the table of the mill. While I am not normally opposed
to modifying expensive tools if it makes money I would have had a hard
to justifying to myself making a large hole in the table so the barrel
of the mic could hang down.

I took it out of the vise. I didn't have that mic anyway. I used a
height gage on the surface plate.

I would also point out that I didn't watch ANYBODY'S video step by step
as a tutorial. Its often counter productive as I rarely have exactly
the same tools they have. I knew I needed one for the job, what
tolerances I could live with, and I made one with the tools I had handy.

Yes, there were better methods of measurement. I used one, although I
did not use it in the best way. The mic you and I both thought of was
actually not one of them as the part would still have needed to be
dismounted to use. Even if it would do the job I don't have one. Yes I
have lots of gage blocks. Building a gage block stack would have been
no better, and has no bearing on the fact that we both considered a tool
that was not actually the optimum tool for the job even though it appear
to be.

I'm not sure what the argument is here. I successfully made the part
the tool was made for and have it on the front bench for packaging now.
I detailed how it was not a perfect tool just for the edification of
others. I pointed out how we both initially thought of the same
measuring tool. I pointed out how that tool would not have been any
better, and in fact the choice I made was better even if I didn't use it
the best way. I even noted (in this post) what would have been the
better way. What else is it you are trying to prove here? That I
didn't do it exactly the same way as Clough? Okay. I didn't. He
didn't make a perfect tool either. Just ask him. That I didn't make a
perfect tool? Admitted already. That I didn't use the best method?
Admitted. That you are smarter than me? Okay, maybe. That doesn't
mean I'm not smart enough. That my method was a failure? I disagree.
My part is not only finished its been tested. The holes in opposing
pieces at a 45 degree angle line up and the pull pins (4 of them) drop
in easily. 8 holes in 4 pieces had to line up 4 times. They do. The
mold makes good castings (also tested). If I throw the gage away right
after I hit send on this post I'm money ahead because the job got done.

If I offended you by pointing out I had considered the same tool and
that I didn't agree it would have been ideal after I thought about it...
sorry. I haven't change my mind though. Ultimately I think the reason
I didn't get a "better" part was unrelated. I think as already detailed
its because its was in a cheap vise.

--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu0is5$1306o$1@dont-email.me...

On 3/4/2023 3:03 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu019a$11bht$2@dont-email.me...
>
> The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the
> center bore (to reach past center). I'd have to raise the vise or mount
> the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that. LOL. To be
> fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that
> style mic either.
>
> Bob La Londe
>
> ---------------------
>
> I lost you. Wasn't the goal to measure if the quadrant cutout had been
> milled exactly to the center, horizontally and vertically?
> https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
> He used a gage block to measure it. I assumed you would have if you owned
> one, and simply tested the Uni-Mike's capability.
>

****Ultimately you can get better cuts by ->NOT<- dismounting and
remounting the part you are making multiple times. While it may be
possible it increases the chance of operator induced error
exponentially.****

Yes, I did take the part out to measure it. I used a height gage. The
same one I use for measuring tool heights in tool holders for the CNC
mills. By touching the TGP round surface and zeroing you can a quite
accurate measurement. (I'm pretty sure I mentioned i started with a
piece of TGP rod) The funny part here is I could have used that method
in place on the mill, but I had already dismounted the part once. The
mill table being pretty new is quite good enough. My results might have
been better.

Since I cut it to final dimensions as stated by end milling and ->NOT<-
side milling for practical reasons I could not measure it with the mic
you and I both thought of without taking it out of the vise or by boring
a large hole in the table of the mill. While I am not normally opposed
to modifying expensive tools if it makes money I would have had a hard
to justifying to myself making a large hole in the table so the barrel
of the mic could hang down.

I took it out of the vise. I didn't have that mic anyway. I used a
height gage on the surface plate.

I would also point out that I didn't watch ANYBODY'S video step by step
as a tutorial. Its often counter productive as I rarely have exactly
the same tools they have. I knew I needed one for the job, what
tolerances I could live with, and I made one with the tools I had handy.

Yes, there were better methods of measurement. I used one, although I
did not use it in the best way. The mic you and I both thought of was
actually not one of them as the part would still have needed to be
dismounted to use. Even if it would do the job I don't have one. Yes I
have lots of gage blocks. Building a gage block stack would have been
no better, and has no bearing on the fact that we both considered a tool
that was not actually the optimum tool for the job even though it appear
to be.

I'm not sure what the argument is here. I successfully made the part
the tool was made for and have it on the front bench for packaging now.
I detailed how it was not a perfect tool just for the edification of
others. I pointed out how we both initially thought of the same
measuring tool. I pointed out how that tool would not have been any
better, and in fact the choice I made was better even if I didn't use it
the best way. I even noted (in this post) what would have been the
better way. What else is it you are trying to prove here? That I
didn't do it exactly the same way as Clough? Okay. I didn't. He
didn't make a perfect tool either. Just ask him. That I didn't make a
perfect tool? Admitted already. That I didn't use the best method?
Admitted. That you are smarter than me? Okay, maybe. That doesn't
mean I'm not smart enough. That my method was a failure? I disagree.
My part is not only finished its been tested. The holes in opposing
pieces at a 45 degree angle line up and the pull pins (4 of them) drop
in easily. 8 holes in 4 pieces had to line up 4 times. They do. The
mold makes good castings (also tested). If I throw the gage away right
after I hit send on this post I'm money ahead because the job got done.

If I offended you by pointing out I had considered the same tool and
that I didn't agree it would have been ideal after I thought about it...
sorry. I haven't change my mind though. Ultimately I think the reason
I didn't get a "better" part was unrelated. I think as already detailed
its because its was in a cheap vise.

--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff
---------------------------------
I commented on the Mitutoyo Uni-Mike because you mentioned the type and I
have one, not on your procedure. I try to learn how little explanation is
adequate, and how I might be unintentionally misunderstood.

I haven't made a similar part to actually test but I think it could be
measured without removing the work from the vise with the mike's graduated
barrel either upward or horizontal, the carbide spindle face in the center
corner and the clamped "anvil" plate below or beside on the OD of the
cylinder. The contact points would be (barely) in line and the side of the
spindle against the other cut would help align the mike square to the work.
The anvil clamp is 6mm thick and 5/16" or larger parallels should provide
clearance.

In the video he measured in the vise with a standard mike and 0.400" gage
block. I can't copy video procedures exactly either but good ones show the
problems to be solved and prompt ideas for alternate solutions.

At 0.0000" the 0.250" dia spindle clears the frame toe by ~0.095". If you
were thinking of reversing the mike, barrel down, the flat anvil resting on
the quadrant cut, the toe would block the spindle from contacting the OD
opposite the center. What the Uni-Mike can or can't do is not evident from
photos, I had to experiment and then I shared what I found.

If you decide to buy a Uni-Mike or luck onto a good deal as I did (minus the
anvils) it appears to be able to make this quadrant cutout measurement on
up to its full 1" OD capacity. Otherwise I haven't used mine enough to
justify the retail price.

On 3/4/2023 8:54 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Bob La Londe"  wrote in message news:tu0is5$1306o$1@dont-email.me...
>
> On 3/4/2023 3:03 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Bob La Londe"  wrote in message news:tu019a$11bht$2@dont-email.me...
>>
>> The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the
>> center bore (to reach past center).  I'd have to raise the vise or mount
>> the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that.  LOL.  To be
>> fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that
>> style mic either.
>>
>> Bob La Londe
>>
>> ---------------------
>>
>> I lost you. Wasn't the goal to measure if the quadrant cutout had been
>> milled exactly to the center, horizontally and vertically?
>> https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
>> He used a gage block to measure it. I assumed you would have if you
>> owned one, and simply tested the Uni-Mike's capability.
>>
>
> ****Ultimately you can get better cuts by ->NOT<- dismounting and
> remounting the part you are making multiple times.  While it may be
> possible it increases the chance of operator induced error
> exponentially.****
>
> Yes, I did take the part out to measure it.  I used a height gage.  The
> same one I use for measuring tool heights in tool holders for the CNC
> mills.  By touching the TGP round surface and zeroing you can a quite
> accurate measurement.  (I'm pretty sure I mentioned i started with a
> piece of TGP rod)  The funny part here is I could have used that method
> in place on the mill, but I had already dismounted the part once.  The
> mill table being pretty new is quite good enough. My results might have
> been better.
>
> Since I cut it to final dimensions as stated by end milling and ->NOT<-
> side milling for practical reasons I could not measure it with the mic
> you and I both thought of without taking it out of the vise or by boring
> a large hole in the table of the mill.  While I am not normally opposed
> to modifying expensive tools if it makes money I would have had a hard
> to justifying to myself making a large hole in the table so the barrel
> of the mic could hang down.
>
> I took it out of the vise.  I didn't have that mic anyway.  I used a
> height gage on the surface plate.
>
> I would also point out that I didn't watch ANYBODY'S video step by step
> as a tutorial.  Its often counter productive as I rarely have exactly
> the same tools they have.  I knew I needed one for the job, what
> tolerances I could live with, and I made one with the tools I had handy.
>
> Yes, there were better methods of measurement.  I used one, although I
> did not use it in the best way.  The mic you and I both thought of was
> actually not one of them as the part would still have needed to be
> dismounted to use.  Even if it would do the job I don't have one.  Yes I
> have lots of gage blocks.  Building a gage block stack would have been
> no better, and has no bearing on the fact that we both considered a tool
> that was not actually the optimum tool for the job even though it appear
> to be.
>
> I'm not sure what the argument is here.  I successfully made the part
> the tool was made for and have it on the front bench for packaging now.
> I detailed how it was not a perfect tool just for the edification of
> others.  I pointed out how we both initially thought of the same
> measuring tool.  I pointed out how that tool would not have been any
> better, and in fact the choice I made was better even if I didn't use it
> the best way.  I even noted (in this post) what would have been the
> better way.  What else is it you are trying to prove here?  That I
> didn't do it exactly the same way as Clough?  Okay.  I didn't.  He
> didn't make a perfect tool either.  Just ask him.  That I didn't make a
> perfect tool?  Admitted already.  That I didn't use the best method?
> Admitted.  That you are smarter than me?  Okay, maybe.  That doesn't
> mean I'm not smart enough.  That my method was a failure?  I disagree.
> My part is not only finished its been tested.  The holes in opposing
> pieces at a 45 degree angle line up and the pull pins (4 of them) drop
> in easily.  8 holes in 4 pieces had to line up 4 times.  They do.  The
> mold makes good castings (also tested).  If I throw the gage away right
> after I hit send on this post I'm money ahead because the job got done.
>
> If I offended you by pointing out I had considered the same tool and
> that I didn't agree it would have been ideal after I thought about it...
> sorry.  I haven't change my mind though.  Ultimately I think the reason
> I didn't get a "better" part was unrelated.  I think as already detailed
> its because its was in a cheap vise.
>

After watching this discussion , I have decided to interrupt my
current project - a fixture to sharpen the ends of end mills - to make
one of these . Beats trying to figure out why the truck won't run well .
I'm about to just buy an Edelbrock to put on it . The Holley is just
pissin' me off .
--
Snag
"You can lead a dummy to facts
but you can't make him think."