User talk:Mdeby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NATO EPVAT testing

Hi Michel,

I just tried to find generally available references on NATO EPVAT testing and found 3 documents from the British MOD that are a few years old and a NATO presentation. Those documents give some insight in this matter, so the remark on not having any external reference could be removed.

I based the added text mainly from the 3 UK MOD documents. According to their documents the British primarily rely on C.I.P. legislation if this does not deviate from other (NATO EPVAT) standards. I was surprised to read the UK MOD uses quite high proofing pressures for the 9mm Luger and especially for the .50 Browning. Maybe the more cautious C.I.P. legislation has to do with the availability of historic guns in those chamberings (they existed long before NATO was founded) that can not safely tolerate the higher UK MOD pressures. The UK MOD probably assumes the rounds are only to be used in contemporary military arms. If one reads the MOD part 1 document it even becomes clear not every single military arm is necessarily tested by the British. They use EPVAT test barrels for proofing, so NATO does specify their test barrels. As I tried to check the UK MOD information, I found out the official usage by NATO was expressly stated by Kistler International in their Kistler 6215 transducer PDF datasheet.

If you know more non confidential reference documents on NATO EPVAT testing on the internet that would be most welcome to add under the references section. Please warn me if I write nonsense. I can only express how I interpret what I read on this and am no expert on military or NATO proofing procedures.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Françis, No no, it's not nonsense! It is correct that NATO has specified the 6215 Kistler transducer for their Epvat testing. For the procedure itself, we could refer to NATO document AC/225 (Com. III/SC.1)D/200. The one I have is unfortunately in French. What else to say ? It is Nato unclassified but still I am not happy with the perspective to put it somewhere on Internet. I think that, from Wiki's point of view, a reference to it would suffice. In the distribution list, among other, I see that it is distributed in the USA to the Picatinny Arsenal. Despite the fact that this document is quite comprehensive (200 pages approx.), it does not contain pressure/velocity data for specific ammunitions. Indeed as I explained in the article, these values are determined through reference lots that were fired some time ago and distributed among laboratories and manufacturers. In fact I do not even have this information at hand (except looking at firing data in the databases). The most important is how to set the charge amplifiers so they work in the appropriate range and this is done by the user just before firing. For example, we know that 5.56 (223 rem) may reach 5000 bars so we adjust the measuring chain accordingly.--Michel Deby (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michel,

Since you are unhappy with distributing NATO document AC/225 (Com. III/SC.1)D/200, I just mentioned it in the article. The MOD and US web references should provide enough information for Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia is mainly a general encyclopaedia for the general public and not a technical university library. This is why I for example opted to avoid using math in articles (and mentioned some web references for the interested) when I contributed on ballistic subjects. I think this helps to get articles read and grasped by people who otherwise would have “blinded by math and science” given up on further reading.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are entirely right. Many wiki writers forget this idea that an encyclopedia is to let ordinary people grasp the essentials. I am not going to invest my time a lot in contributing in the next few weeks, I concentrate on other things, but one thing I would like to see coming is a comparison study Saami-Cip. Unfortunately I am missing the official Saami data at the moment, I had these papers in the past but we lost them. Saami is still with documents dating back 1993.. and I wonder if it is not better to wait until the next release (I know they are making a good job to cooperate with CIP and maybe they will come with something close to it) Two or three weeks ago, I asked someone going to Las Vegas to look for it but surprisingly Saami didn't even had a booth and there was no way to get in touch with the people. (I just don't feel it well, how the things are ruled currently in the USA.. ?) --Michel Deby (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Machining

Hello Michel,
I am writing the article on Machining. The previous versions treated the subject as a hobby related topic rather than an engineering discipline. There is still a section on hobby and I am requesting your advise whether that section should be removed. My opinion is keeping it will be a waste of a section. A mention in the introduction should be sufficient.

So far I have changed the article quite a bit. You may go over it and I will also appreciate if you can contribute.

Thank you.Sumanch (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sumanch. Yes, I think I made some comments a few weeks ago in the direction you have updated this article. Machining is not a hobby, except perhaps in the USA where the industry is in a very sad situation. There is nothing new in fact, in the early 90's I had the chance to study quite deeply the machine-tool business and the picture was (still is ?) that in USA, we find many "job-shops". I don't say there are no modern factories but the culture is closer to a sub-contracting business more than a primary business like we find it in Europe as well as in Asia and India.
What I mean is that beside the Hobby aspect, even in the professional arena, US Machine-tool industry look quite unprofessional... The best reference is Germany. They are shining worldwide.
Unfortunately I do not have much time to edit articles, except may be a few corrections.
However, I just read you work:
- Indeed the picture look much better !!
- "drill press", are you sure it is the correct term ? I would rather use "drill" or "drilling machine"
- I think, very soon in the article, you should talk about "machining centers" that gather in one machine several separate machines of the past, most often milling, drilling and even turning.
- For me you can remove this "hobby" paragraph. Generally speaking, we must fight against the "hobbyist smell" most US editors leave behind them in industry related subjects.

Altogether, congratulation, I will support you if some wishes to make irrelevant changes.--Michel Deby (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Michel,
    Thanks for your feedback. I agree with you on the drill. Right now my primary focus is to get the material in the article. After that the article can be reviewed and edited for proper terms and structure. Currently, the biggest help I am looking for is the diagram images. They are absolutely critical for this article. I have uploaded one image, scanned from a book. The proper way to do it will be to create the images in using an image editor and then upload. Let me know if you can help or know someone who is good with Photoshop who can help.
    Thank you. Suman Sumanch (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sumanch. I wonder if you should not take illustrations out of brochures and booklets we find on exhibitions like IMTS or EMO. I had an extensive collection in the past but they were getting old and they are scrapped now, I should visit exhibitions to reconstitute it but it is not my main area of activity now.
For the rest, I think there are many articles to create surrounding machining, if you have time... Please consider speaking about machining centers very soon into this "machining" article. For the classification, in the machine-tool business perhaps you know we split into two categories : metal cutting and metal forming. "machining" is more related to "metal cutting". Other things that could be discussed is the cutting technology itself much like you started already. I do not have time to contribute myself but I can read, make little corrections and provide feedback. Regards, --Michel Deby (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)