|WikiProject Metalworking||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
"An exception are Xs"
Re "An exception are ER collets": There was no grammatical error, although it is true that the English-speaker's ear expects "is" in that spot. The alternate rephrasing to just avoid the issue entirely was a wise idea. But just BTW, consider:
"All good pets are two-legged."
"An exception are cats." "Cats are an exception."
"An exception = cats." "Cats = an exception."
1/4inch hex chucks
Can lumbercutter or someone add anything about these devices? They seem to be widely found now, on what are often called "drill/drivers", battery powered 14.4V or better.
Speaking personally, I was always wanting a "small SDS". A massive 750joule large size SDS is unwieldy when you have to drill a load of small holes, say 5mm - 8mm (I even felt like contacting James Dyson about this hole in the market, no pun intended), e.g. to hang clips on a wall for an armored cable, perched up a ladder.
In a sense the 1/4" hex chuck does at first seem like a mini SDS. But if you try drilling into hard masonry you soon find its limits. So the hole in the market is still there.
A chuck is a ...
The first line is: "A chuck is a specialized type of clamp used to hold rotating tools or materials." I'm here to look up chucks in relation to Hounsfield tensometers, which don't rotate, so I think there should be a "typically" or "usually" in the sentence. Davini994 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Source: http://wdturner.com/ChuckCollet.pdf or http://www.tiniusolsen.com/schooloftesting/HounsTen1932.pdf, page 4. I'll make the change now, ta. Davini994 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "universal chuck" is used twice. The first time it is claimed that "universal chuck" applies to self centering chucks. The second time it says that "universal chuck" applies to independent jaw chucks. I'm not an expert, so I don't know which is correct, but this is either an imprecise term that is used inconsistently and should be removed from the article or the usage should be corrected. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've only seen it applied to self-centering, so I removed the second reference. — ¾-10 21:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Good Stuff. but...
I am impressed by the subject matter and enjoyed the article for the most part. However, I get the impression that it was written by experts in the field (SURRRprise!), who did not always know when they were lapsing into jargon. I have no quarrel with jargon, often having been criticised for my own, but in several places I had no idea what was meant, even after re-reading. In places the text needs some linking and re-wording in case anyone reading it actually needs to understand it. I think the best would be if a layman (sucker) could read it and possibly re-word the techy bits, but if he is to know what he is saying, and not to omit what a real machinist would like to read, then the sucker will need a real machinist to explain the parts that he does not realise he does not understand. I don't mind playing the sucker here, but then I need a volunteer who can tell me what it is about and where I am talking nonsense. Interested parties, if any, are welcome to ping me or contact me on my talk page. JonRichfield (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @JonRichfield:A valid criticism on many articles. If you are not confident about rewording the "techy bits", then the easiest thing is to copy the phrases here and let an expert try and re-interpret them. The official point of a talk page after all is to improve the article, and if you list what is not clear you are contributing significantly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Martin of Sheffield: OK Martin, I'll give it a go. It should supplement my woeful ignorance of the field. Watch this space. JonRichfield (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Martin of Sheffield: This one hit me early on. One reason is that I don't know the limitations of what tailstocks can do; for example, are they sometimes, seldom, or never powered? I found this opaque: "In some applications, the tool or workpiece being held by the chuck remains stationary while another tool or workpiece rotates (for example, a drill bit in the tailstock spindle of a lathe, or a round workpiece being milled by a milling cutter)." I propose rewriting it as: "Depending on the application, either the tool or the workpiece may rotate, and either the headstock chuck remains stationary while the workpiece or tool on the tailstock turns, or the headstock rotates while holding the tool or workpiece. For example, a stationary drill bit in the tailstock spindle of a lathe may drill a rotating workpiece in the headstock chuck, or a round workpiece rotating in the headstock chuck may be milled by a milling cutter) in the tailstock." I shall delay posting it though, because I am deeply uncertain whether it is nonsense. JonRichfield (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Phew, good! Another item does "part off" have any special meaning compared to say, "cut off"?