Talk:Speeds and feeds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Regarding what redirects to where
I started off doing a minor copyedit on this page but have ended up doing more than I intended, I'm splitting a fair portion of this content off to cutting speed as that is where I feel it belongs. Spindle speed is derived from cutting speed, but cutting speeds and feeds deserve an article of their own, especially from a metalworking perspective.
I'm not altogether happy with the intro and point form layout but I wanted to include woodworking and grinding as they are both affected by spindle speed slightly differently.
I've left the woodworking paragraph in limbo and will leave it up to a woodworker to expand it suitably. — Graibeard – talk 07:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was rather surprised when I put in feed rate and had a red link... definitely a topic that needs expanding. Bushytails 07:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Why not just rename (move) this article to Cutting speed and deal with both spindle speed and feed rate? I'll do the woodworking part.Luigizanasi 06:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Done -- feed rate, spindle speed and cutting speed have been moved to the cutting speed page. Spindle speed is derived from cutting speed and feed rate is mixed in with it, so cutting speed won the toss. it took a while to get my head around it but I think it's sorted now. Onto the next project, all going well of course. Feed rate and spindle speed are now redirects, as is speeds and feeds — Graibeard 12:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Since the article is about both cutting speed and feed rate, I moved it to "Speeds and feeds"
This article is already developed to the point where it concerns both cutting speed and feed rate. Each of those has its own section; but they can also be x-ref'd to each other where appropriate. And they don't have separate articles (nor should they, IMO). So it seemed illogical to have it titled as "Cutting speed" and have both "Feed rate" and "Speeds and feeds" redirect to it. (A little like having "jelly" and "PBJ sandwich" both redirect to "peanut butter".) I moved it accordingly, and revamped the lede to tie things together. The sections below can still treat any one thing (cutting speed, feed rate, spindle speed) in all its glory. Cheers, — ¾-10 19:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Conversion error fixed
I noticed an error in the RPM calculations for Diameter. If one uses the usual multiplier k=4 (Imperial Units) then the Diameter is in "inches", not "feet". I submitted the change. Portknocker 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RPM calcuations need to be touched.
I've touched the RPM calculations to be "correct" for english units. Can someone update the section to properly reflect the equations and units to make sense with metric and english? -Scott
- mea culpa. I've redone the equations as per the referenced book. There was an error when I originally transcribed them. Hopefully all will appear correct now — Graibeard (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yikes guys. I think the equations are a tad misleading. The upper equation is the estimate for milling, and the lower equation is the estimate for lathe work. (hence name of "work piece") Scott did edit the lower equation correctly for the "precise" form of the milling equation. Graibeard, might be worth putting the precise form of each out to the right of the equations? (dunno.. just a reader with some ideas. ;-)) Thanks for all the work here btw. Its been great to see this information in a simple consumable form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.169.110.12 (talk • contribs) .
- Okay, I've reworked it again. I've clarified the definition of cutting speed (at least I hope I have!), added an anology which I believe is on the money (but you never know with anologies), and have provided worked examples of the formulas which should help to clarify the minimal differences between them.
- I'm not sure why the suggestion that the formulas are for different operations, milling, or turning but it, or similar has been said before in the articles history. I've reviewed the source and checked the nomograms and can only conclude that because I'm using plain HSS surface speeds in the example that this is skewing the perception that things are wrong. Considering that carbides, ceramics and flood cooling has upped the surface speeds tremendously in recent years I can understand that initial reaction.
- And thanks for the feedback, you're not just a reader, but a contributing reader, that's a big difference in my book, and from there, editing is only a tiny step. — Cheers — Graibeard (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)