Talk:Bending (metalworking)

The diagrams associated with the Bending Allowance and Bend Deduction paragraphs show "t" (distance from the inside face to the Neutral Line) as being measured from the "outside" bend surface, vs. the "inside" bend surface as correctly defined in previous text.

Metalworking Start‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Although the article is rather brief, I would like to compliment the editor who added that animated image of bending! I like that! I think Wikipedia has some good animated maps and I really would like to see more of these sorts of things as they add a certain flair to this website. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the animation would stop after a few cycles - can that be done? Wilhkar (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar[reply]

I believe it can, but it'll increase the file size, how many times do you want it to cycle? The more cycles, the bigger the file. It doesn't bother me the way it is. Dissymmetry (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tables of bend factors

I would like to see a table for the different K factors for aluminum and steel based on standard stock sizes. I found some useful information on this (see below). There could be different tables based on the different bending methods.

[1] [2] --Noelstalker (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old request, but it has been fulfilled. Dissymmetry (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Re-write

I just finished re-writing this page, sorry I do not have sources for the information as my experience is the source and where I got my original input information is lost in the sands of time.Dissymmetry (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be better connected to the press brake article

Because the process and the equipment are so tightly linked, this article and the one on press brakes need to be better integrated so as to not cause duplication. Wilhkar (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar[reply]

Perhaps the press brake article should be merged into this article because a press brake is only used for bending sheets and plates, of which this article is about. Wizard191 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is good to separate the machines from the process, there are still different machines than press brakes that do bending, like the folding machines. Ooh Salvagnini, drool ... This page, the Brake page and the machines certainly need to be better crosslinked. Dissymmetry (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material Considerations & Advantages

I do not believe these sections are giving any useful information. I have seen materials up to 2" formed on a press brake, yes I know rediculous but true. Regardless, I think they should be either expanded greatly or removed altogether.Dissymmetry (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting these. Wilhkar (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar[reply]

Bottoming Entry

History item: 16:17, 8 February 2010 Wilhkar (talk | contribs) (14,801 bytes) (→Bottoming: Replaced description with one that can include source citation. Is line spacing off? it is in the preview but I don't know how to change it.) (undo)

I didn't care for the citation used, I found it difficult to follow, can it be merged with what we already had and cited as summary rather than direct quote? I understand the need for citations, but I think it is better to put them in our own words unless it can't be said any better than their exact quotation. I have no problem with attributing something that is 90% my own to someone else's citation as long as they are in agreement. Additionally the changes to the definitions have eliminated the simple cohesion between them that made them each easily understood in comparison to one another ... Everywhere else we are using T for thickness, I think we should stick with that. Also if I am understanding the description correctly some of it sounds more like Air Bending than Bottoming? Dissymmetry (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to Dissymmetry about the source--Not as authoritative as something that has been peer reviewed. it was not a direct quote, however. TMEH (extensively peer reviewed) uses "t" (lower case) for thickness, so I agree that we should stick to that. Would you prefer that I compare the paragraph before it was changed to the source used and to TMEH, or does Dissemmetry want to revise, given your better direct knowledge? Sorry if I messed up something that was pretty good to start with. Wilhkar (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar[reply]

The Wikipedia verifiability policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. While strict, it also allows some flexibility on the part of the editors (us) to determine when something is likely to be challenged. This means that we can choose not use citations where we feel the statements are factual and not likely to be challenged. Dissymmetry (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good ref to the calculations sections

Just FYI: http://www.thefabricator.com/article/bending/bend-deduction-charts Wizard191 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]