Talk:Milling machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Metalworking (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect 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.
C-Class article C  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

copy milling vs. pantograph[edit]

Could someone address copy milling, and the differences between that a a pantograph machine?Chickpeana (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Senses of the term "engraving"[edit]

I've partially removed "Most CNC milling machines, also known as engraving machines, " I've never come across the term, but I'm not in that field so I'll leave it to others - Graibeard 12:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I also wondered about that for a long time. Recently I came across an old use of the term "engraving" where it was meant to mean the same thing as "diesinking". This explains the terminology usage, but it's just as well that the lede currently does not include that term, because I think nowadays everyone would say "diesinking" or "contour milling" in that sense, with "engraving" referring to, e.g., carving some text into a surface. At least in my neck of the woods. — ¾-10 17:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll put the same comment here as I put in the engraving topic. If you ask an engraver, then "engraving" is the incision of lines by essentially carving with chisels (gravers, burins), which raise a bur or chip in the process. To them, anything involving wheels and abrasives is NOT engraving. In fact, to some the term only applies to a two dimensional result - any deeper is called carving. True automated engraving machines do that very thing - they drag a chisel point across metal with a pantographic control. I'm not laying down a definition, and many in the world call cutting glass with wheels "engraving", and other things similar, rightly or wrongly. Just illuminating the point of view. To a professional engraver anything that doesn't involve a point cutting a shallow line, raising a chip in the process (as a chisel does) is NOT engraving. Jjdon (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

caption change for endmill picture[edit]

I changed the title from cutters to endmills in the interests of accuracy, as endmills are what they are called by those who use, sell, produce or otherwise handles them. Ollin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

B... but... but what about face mills, slab mills, shell mills, slitting saws, side mills, flycutters, drills, reamers, boring heads, burnishing tools, and all the other cutters a milling machine uses? ='( - Toastydeath 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. NEVERMIND I AM RETARDED. - Toastydeath 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite facts[edit]

Can anyone cite information supporting the suggestion that CNC machines were developed to short circuit organised labor? I suspect this in someone's subjective opinio and not fact. As a machinist, I would suspect that this was done to increase accuracy and interchangability of parts. Manually operated machines are more likely to lead to variances in product from one day to the next. Irritantno9 (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting and complicated topic. It's a situation complex enough that everyone can see in it what they want to see, because there's some truth to all sides. I had the exact same reaction as you when I first caught an inkling of this over at Talk:Numerical control. The argument about social power's influence on NC/CNC development is presented at length in Noble, David F. (1984), Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation, New York, New York, USA: Knopf, ISBN 978-0-394-51262-4, LCCN 83048867. . However, there are some formidable problems with breezily mentioning the argument in Wikipedia articles such as this one. For the moment, I would say that anyone interested in the history of machine tools should definitely read Noble 1984 (which I just did), because regardless of whether (or to what degree) you come away accepting his central argument, the book offers a very interesting and detailed look at the profusion of automating technologies that were on the horizon in the 1940s and what happened with them in subsequent decades. I think that Wikipedia will inevitably need to address this in better fashion in future, but it will require some thought and time. Honestly I think the thing to do for the moment is to remove the reference to the motivations behind the development, simply because you should keep the lid on the can of worms until you're ready to adequately explore it. (Just lifting the lid and then stopping makes people ask "WTF?" like you and I both did.) I also think that eventually WP will need to have a separate article called "machine tool control", because you can't talk about control development just in reference to one particular class of machine tools (e.g., milling machines in this article's case). Well, I'm rambling, but to summarize, I'm going to remove the passing reference to the can of worms until it can be adequately explored. — ¾-10 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

language box[edit]

why does the Spanish version link has a star? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The star indicates that the Spanish article is a featured article on the Spanish Wikipedia. — ¾-10 02:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Portical mills"????[edit]

The list of "Other milling machine variants and terminology" includes the following "type":

Portical mills It has the spindle mounted in a T structure

... huh? I've searched all over, and the only instances of "portical mills" are duplicates of this page (complete with grammatical error). Is this a real type of milling machine, or just a misspelled "vertical mill"? (Note that a year and a half ago I wrote this same comment about the initial picture's caption; the caption has been changed but my comment was deleted. I'm still not sure whether there is or is not such a thing as "portical"...) --Dan Griscom (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a search and couldn't come up with a lick of info (other than dupes of this page). I've never heard of such a thing, so I say it's garbage. Wizard191 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Gone. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


We need a whole section started for the description of a mill. The lathe article does this well.

As a side note, I've move this sentence from back gear which can be incorporated into the section: "On a metalworking lathe or milling machine a back gear is a set of gears that reduces the spindle speed in half." Wizard191 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

3D milling[edit]

3D milling is not described (see aldough there is a picture of a 3D object (needs text label)

can the distinction between regular(2d/2,5d?) and 3d milling be made more clear ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

problem with CAD/CNC image[edit]

This is a relatively small issue, but in the CAD/CNC comparison image shown at the top of the page, the physical part has two large holes which don't exist in the CAD version. Presumably the physical part was not actually generated from the CAD file shown... (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are most likely fixturing holes. Wizard191 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can see 5 holes in the physical object not seen on the CAD drawing, so the argument they are "fixturing holes" is not sound. Whether this is relevant depends on what the picture is meant to illustrate. I suspect in this instance the picture is demonstrating the concept of parts being machined from CAD designs, and since the motivation for that is repeatable accuracy I think it is relevant that the part be as identical to the drawing as possible. Five holes is not a trivial difference. Cottonshirtτ 04:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get 5 holes from; I only see two that are not in the CAD image. As far as fixturing holes go for simpler parts, they are not usually designed into the part, and I would qualify this part as simple (just from the looks of it). Would the picture be better without those holes, absolutely, but I don't think they completely ruin the picture to the point where its useless. Wizard191 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
On the left hand end of the completed part there is a piece that juts out. On the front face of that there is a large hole, and on the inside curved face there are three smaller holes in a line. The right hand end also has a hole in its front face and none of these are seen in the CAD image. 3 + 1 + 1 = 5.Cottonshirtτ 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
LOL, those aren't holes, those are drops of cutting fluid. Open up the picture to its full size; you'll see clearly that they aren't holes. Wizard191 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree that (1) they may well be fixturing holes not recorded in the CAD/CAM file, and (2) regardless [even if the file version was revised later], the picture still serves its purpose here well. Regarding point #1, remember that the person who drew the part drawing is often not the same person who decides how to machine the part. Not that the former is necessarily totally ignorant of the machining plans; but it may often be that only the latter decides on the hole centers for fixturing, lifting-bolt holes (for large parts), etc. — ¾-10 04:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure the CNC stuff (and the picture of the CNC mill which just looks like a big block) belongs at the top of the page. A nice picture of an old-school vertical mill at work would be much more illustrative. LRT24 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

see also references[edit]

Any strong reason to link to rapid prototyping or 3D printing? They're not related to milling. Wilhkar (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar

Quite right; I've removed them. Wizard191 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

machining centers[edit]

Should machining centers have their own article? Again? (notice the term redirects to here) Wilhkar (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) wilhkar

I'd tend to say no, because they are so similar to a milling machine. Wizard191 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Belated new pondering, 10 months later: I agree with both ideas above, occurring in temporal sequence. That is, keep the merged article for now (as currently existing), with a separate article to be spun off in years to come when anyone (perhaps me) gets around to developing the content and refs sufficiently to warrant the spin-off. Same thought also applies to spinning turning center off of lathe (metal) when we get the chance. Looking forward to it! — ¾-10 18:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bridgeport references[edit]

This article often cites "Bridgeport-type (-style)" milling machines before it describes them. When one reaches World War I and Interwar Period, there is no reference to the reputed inventor of this type of machine, Rudolph Bannow (1897-1962). I recommend that the Bridgeport milling machine should be described with a sub-heading that gives attribution to its inventor and that the first reference to the Bridgeport-type milling machine should link further down in the article. For example, the statement, "Turret mills, like the ubiquitous Bridgeport, are generally smaller than bedmills, and are considered by some to be more versatile," should follow the explanation of what a turret mill is. Look at building the information so that the reader starts with the basics and builds to the particulars. --User:HopsonRoad 17:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely capital idea. Funny you mention this, because I was just reading this TMW article over coffee this morning, which mentions that Bridgeport mill serial number 1 is on display at the American Precision Museum, and I thought to myself, "I oughta go add a mention of that interesting little tidbit to the article "Bridgeport (machine tool brand)". Which I'm about to go do! Happy new year! — ¾-10 18:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Usage of "form factor"[edit]

I am concerned that the term, "form factor" obscures rather than elucidates what's being described in this article. Wikipedia's description of form factor has a variety of meanings, the most relevant of which is, "the geometry of a product, especially in industrial and engineering design...." It then goes on to list applications to computers. A Google search also emphasizes computer usage. Since a reasonably literate reader, like myself, had to look up a term that is in an encyclopedia, geared for lay readers, I feel that a less specialized term should be substituted. I propose either "geometry" or "configuration." --User:HopsonRoad 03:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I like "configuration" maybe more than "form factor" (due to likelier recognition by readers), although both are acceptable. I was never entirely happy writing "form factor", because, as you say, it's likely to be unfamiliar to readers; but I felt like our language lacks a good term for the idea, and I have seen "form factor" catching on as it slowly moves out of IT slang and into general vocabulary. (For example, referring to disk sizes and formats, mobile phone form factors, etc.) I think the reason it's catching on is because general language strongly needs a word for this idea nowadays, and it has formerly lacked one (neologism in action!). However, I think the word "configuration" is a good alternative, and I think it failed to occur to me when I was using "form factor". So I'm good with the change. I think we should pipe-link the first mention to wikt, i.e., [[wikt:configuration#Noun|configuration]]. I have been doing this more lately whenever I use a "big word" on Wikipedia, and I think it's great for readers such as K-12 students and ESL/EFL readers, of which en.Wikipedia has truckloads—in fact, as time goes on, I value them equally as audiences ([E-1st-L adults] versus [E-1st-L kids plus ESL/EFL adults & kids]), although some of the content development that I do is very challenging to clarify down to the bone, and it'll take some years to refine it further. Serving the lingually needier readers takes more work and thought, but the payoff will be much bigger. Anyway, I digress! I got your mail. Need to shower and ship off to bed for the night, but I'll get back tomorrow. — ¾-10 03:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, 3/4-10. I agree that such a specialized word is often helpful. However, in this case, when I see "factor," I expect a mathematical relationship, like aspect ratio. Unless we can describe such a mathematical relationship for machines, I feel that the term is unsuitable. I note that the term is being used in an increasingly loosey-goosey manner in about the half of the computer and cell-phone references, but in science and in the original computer terms, the term was still mathematical. In German, one might use Gestalt, the word for form or shape, to denote an archetypical image. So, I like the approach that you propose. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Britannica's current entry on diesinking was evidently written in the 1960s[edit]

Accessdate=2011-01-27. It talks about tracers, pantographs, and plaster models, yet it doesn't even mention CNC! Not to make too much of this one data point, but I'm sorry, this is just emblematic to me of how Wikipedia is kicking Britannica's ass despite anyone's counterarguments about the supposed benefits of paid editorial oversight and the supposed horrors of crowdsourcing. Guess what? Crowdsourcing is working, "free" is working, and all the rest is just jealousy and asking who moved the cheese. I'm sorry to sound like a shill with that latter reference—I know it's about as popular as talking about synergy and right-sizing—but sometimes you've got to be honest about what you see in front of your own eyes, even if people resent hearing it. — ¾-10 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Amen, brothers and sisters! User:HopsonRoad 03:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)