I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would care
to share for making one. In the past I have made "special" angle
blocks that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular
angle. It has a clearance where the edge of the part is located
assuring burrs, dings, and chamfers have little or no affect in the
location of the edge in relationship to the angle block. This allows
me to indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math
to tell me where that edge is. It works, but its cludgy, requires
some math (or cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the
location of the exposed edge.
Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made. It is basically a
cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its
central axis. Then 1/4 of the round if machined away. When its
placed over the exposed edge it can be probed to find center and
height of the edge more easily than my previous method. In addition
it doesn't matter what angle the work piece is mounted at to find that edge. It should work for most work piece angles of any angle between
90 and 0 where the widest point of the tool is accessible with the
probe or edge finder. Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
P.S. Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
the first one to think of it. Does this tool have a proper name?
On 27/02/2023 21:36, Bob La Londe wrote:
I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would careThe sort of thing shown here https://www.ctemag.com/news/articles/clever-tools-finding-edge . I could
to share for making one. In the past I have made "special" angle
blocks that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular
angle. It has a clearance where the edge of the part is located
assuring burrs, dings, and chamfers have little or no affect in the
location of the edge in relationship to the angle block. This allows
me to indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math
to tell me where that edge is. It works, but its cludgy, requires
some math (or cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the
location of the exposed edge.
Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made. It is basically a
cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its
central axis. Then 1/4 of the round if machined away. When its
placed over the exposed edge it can be probed to find center and
height of the edge more easily than my previous method. In addition
it doesn't matter what angle the work piece is mounted at to find that
edge. It should work for most work piece angles of any angle between
90 and 0 where the widest point of the tool is accessible with the
probe or edge finder. Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
P.S. Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
the first one to think of it. Does this tool have a proper name?
do with one of those.
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:ttjahk$3c2v5$1@dont-email.me...
-------------------
Here is another version: https://www.reddit.com/r/Machinists/comments/8342ay/edgefinding_with_coax_indicator/
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:ttjahk$3c2v5$1@dont-email.me...
-------------------
Here is another version: https://www.reddit.com/r/Machinists/comments/8342ay/edgefinding_with_coax_indicator/
On 27/02/2023 21:36, Bob La Londe wrote:
I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would careIs this what you were looking at before https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
to share for making one. In the past I have made "special" angle
blocks that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular
angle. It has a clearance where the edge of the part is located
assuring burrs, dings, and chamfers have little or no affect in the
location of the edge in relationship to the angle block. This allows
me to indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math
to tell me where that edge is. It works, but its cludgy, requires
some math (or cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the
location of the exposed edge.
Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made. It is basically a
cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its
central axis. Then 1/4 of the round if machined away. When its
placed over the exposed edge it can be probed to find center and
height of the edge more easily than my previous method. In addition
it doesn't matter what angle the work piece is mounted at to find that
edge. It should work for most work piece angles of any angle between
90 and 0 where the widest point of the tool is accessible with the
probe or edge finder. Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
P.S. Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
the first one to think of it. Does this tool have a proper name?
. Although potentially easy to make I'm surprised I haven't seen a
commercial offering yet.
I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would care
to share for making one. In the past I have made "special" angle
blocks that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular
angle. It has a clearance where the edge of the part is located
assuring burrs, dings, and chamfers have little or no affect in the
location of the edge in relationship to the angle block. This allows
me to indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math
to tell me where that edge is. It works, but its cludgy, requires
some math (or cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the
location of the exposed edge.
Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made. It is basically a
cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its
central axis. Then 1/4 of the round if machined away. When its
placed over the exposed edge it can be probed to find center and
height of the edge more easily than my previous method. In addition
it doesn't matter what angle the work piece is mounted at to find that edge. It should work for most work piece angles of any angle between
90 and 0 where the widest point of the tool is accessible with the
probe or edge finder. Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
P.S. Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
the first one to think of it. Does this tool have a proper name?
"David Billington" wrote in message news:ttjh47$3creb$1@dont-email.me...
Although potentially easy to make I'm surprised I haven't seen a
commercial offering yet.
-------------------------
Google found "chair" edge finders that use the same principle. https://www.amazon.com/Flexbar-Magnetic-Single-Edge-Finder/dp/B001CTIG18
Unless the work blank has been surface ground I zero on the edges of a
1-2-3 block and use however the blank fits against the fixed jaw and end
stop as its 0,0 corner. It's at least repeatable.
I found one of these in an antique furniture store for initially
grinding a square reference corner. https://www.aloktools.com/product/precision-v-block-and-clamp-all-angle/
Sometimes tool boxes show up when he buys estate contents. He saves the woodworking tools for furniture repairs and wall hangers but has no
knowledge of or clientele for the pre-CNC machinist tools, except me.
A corner finder made with dowel pins in bored holes would eliminate
possible error from a tool change or runout. It should be as accurate as
your DRO.
When I've sent odd-shaped designs to a machine shop they left orthogonal reference surfaces on the blank as long as possible.
When I've sent odd-shaped designs to a machine shop they left orthogonal reference surfaces on the blank as long as possible.
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:ttlk9h$3mb5g$1@dont-email.me...
On 2/28/2023 11:32 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
When I've sent odd-shaped designs to a machine shop they left
orthogonal reference surfaces on the blank as long as possible.
You're picking on me for saying rectanguloid right? LOL
Bob La Londe
------------------------------------------
Absotively not, I was in Mensa
form. I make up words all the time, then Google them and find that
someone else beat me. Can you use it in a logical sentence along with
with Phugoid (a real word)?
In rec.aviation.military a couple of us had fun extending a fake German
word, Versuchsunterwasserflugzeugtraeger, an experimental submarine
aircraft carrier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
We never stretched it as far as this classic compounded word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizit%C3%A4tenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft
A German pointed out that such long words were then abbreviated into
short ones, i.e. Kapitaenleutnant (ship's captain) became Kaleun.
A Bavarian expletive: Himmiherrgotzaggramentzefixallelujamilextamarschscheissglumpfaregtz!!!
In TV writing the general term for fake technical words that are hard
for actors to pronounce is Phlebotinum. A "Buffy" writer invented the
word, but the idea had been used earlier to torment Star Trek's Dr Crusher.
Absotively not, I was in Mensa
One might say it was a fugoid about a rectanguloid coming back from whence
it began.
P.S. I do not believe the temporal scholastic gain of being promoted out
of your grade into a higher grade (twice for me) outweighs the benefit of >social development with peers of your own age. I didn't do a damn thing >useful with those two years gained.
I'd like to know who has made one of these and any tips you would care
to share for making one. In the past I have made "special" angle blocks that capture an over all rectangular part at a particular angle. It has
a clearance where the edge of the part is located assuring burrs, dings,
and chamfers have little or no affect in the location of the edge in relationship to the angle block. This allows me to
indicate/probe/touchoff the angle plate/block and use the math to tell
me where that edge is. It works, but its cludgy, requires some math (or
cad to do the math) when often what I want/need is the location of the exposed edge.
Recently a YouTuber posted a tool they had made. It is basically a
cylinder of known diameter with a clearance hole bored down its central axis. Then 1/4 of the round if machined away. When its placed over the exposed edge it can be probed to find center and height of the edge more easily than my previous method. In addition it doesn't matter what
angle the work piece is mounted at to find that edge. It should work
for most work piece angles of any angle between 90 and 0 where the
widest point of the tool is accessible with the probe or edge finder. Of course 90 and 0 would not require the tool.
P.S. Its such a simple elegant solution I am sure the YouTuber wasn't
the first one to think of it. Does this tool have a proper name?
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tto09u$ees$1@dont-email.me...
The hard part was measuring it, and its why I badly hosed the first two.
A replaceable anvil micrometer might have been able to reach past
center, but I don't have one. ...
----------------
The 1" Mitutoyo Uni-Mike will, the outer edge of the spindle face can be centered on up to a 1" circle.
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tto09u$ees$1@dont-email.me...
The hard part was measuring it, and its why I badly hosed the first two.
A replaceable anvil micrometer might have been able to reach past
center, but I don't have one. ...
----------------
The 1" Mitutoyo Uni-Mike will, the outer edge of the spindle face can be centered on up to a 1" circle.
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:ttvrae$10tnd$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/2/2023 4:24 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tto09u$ees$1@dont-email.me...
The hard part was measuring it, and its why I badly hosed the first two.
A replaceable anvil micrometer might have been able to reach past
center, but I don't have one. ...
----------------
The 1" Mitutoyo Uni-Mike will, the outer edge of the spindle face can
be centered on up to a 1" circle.
Yep, exactly the type pf mic I was thinking of. I would have still had
to take the block out of the vise unless I side milled the dimension.
Buy end milling the dimension I was able to exhibit my inner cheapness
and use a used mill.
Bob La Londe
Proffessional Hack, Hobbyist, Wannabe, Shade Tree, Button Pushing, Not a
real machinist
-----------------------
In case my brief description was unclear, it could measure the height
(the radius) of a quadrant milled from a cylinder of up to 1" diameter.
With the spindle outer edge at the center the toe of the anvil clamping surface just touches a 1" cylinder and clears a 3/4" one. I checked with
the center cutoff tool pip of rod stock.
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu019a$11bht$2@dont-email.me...
The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the center bore (to reach past center). I'd have to raise the vise or mount
the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that. LOL. To be
fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that
style mic either.
Bob La Londe
---------------------
I lost you. Wasn't the goal to measure if the quadrant cutout had been
milled exactly to the center, horizontally and vertically? https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
He used a gage block to measure it. I assumed you would have if you
owned one, and simply tested the Uni-Mike's capability.
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu019a$11bht$2@dont-email.me...
The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the center bore (to reach past center). I'd have to raise the vise or mount
the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that. LOL. To be
fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that
style mic either.
Bob La Londe
---------------------
I lost you. Wasn't the goal to measure if the quadrant cutout had been
milled exactly to the center, horizontally and vertically? https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
He used a gage block to measure it. I assumed you would have if you owned one, and simply tested the Uni-Mike's capability.
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu0is5$1306o$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/4/2023 3:03 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu019a$11bht$2@dont-email.me...
The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the
center bore (to reach past center). I'd have to raise the vise or mount
the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that. LOL. To be
fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that
style mic either.
Bob La Londe
---------------------
I lost you. Wasn't the goal to measure if the quadrant cutout had been
milled exactly to the center, horizontally and vertically?
https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/
He used a gage block to measure it. I assumed you would have if you
owned one, and simply tested the Uni-Mike's capability.
****Ultimately you can get better cuts by ->NOT<- dismounting and
remounting the part you are making multiple times. While it may be
possible it increases the chance of operator induced error
exponentially.****
Yes, I did take the part out to measure it. I used a height gage. The same one I use for measuring tool heights in tool holders for the CNC mills. By touching the TGP round surface and zeroing you can a quite accurate measurement. (I'm pretty sure I mentioned i started with a
piece of TGP rod) The funny part here is I could have used that method
in place on the mill, but I had already dismounted the part once. The
mill table being pretty new is quite good enough. My results might have
been better.
Since I cut it to final dimensions as stated by end milling and ->NOT<-
side milling for practical reasons I could not measure it with the mic
you and I both thought of without taking it out of the vise or by boring
a large hole in the table of the mill. While I am not normally opposed
to modifying expensive tools if it makes money I would have had a hard
to justifying to myself making a large hole in the table so the barrel
of the mic could hang down.
I took it out of the vise. I didn't have that mic anyway. I used a
height gage on the surface plate.
I would also point out that I didn't watch ANYBODY'S video step by step
as a tutorial. Its often counter productive as I rarely have exactly
the same tools they have. I knew I needed one for the job, what
tolerances I could live with, and I made one with the tools I had handy.
Yes, there were better methods of measurement. I used one, although I
did not use it in the best way. The mic you and I both thought of was actually not one of them as the part would still have needed to be
dismounted to use. Even if it would do the job I don't have one. Yes I have lots of gage blocks. Building a gage block stack would have been
no better, and has no bearing on the fact that we both considered a tool
that was not actually the optimum tool for the job even though it appear
to be.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. I successfully made the part
the tool was made for and have it on the front bench for packaging now.
I detailed how it was not a perfect tool just for the edification of others. I pointed out how we both initially thought of the same
measuring tool. I pointed out how that tool would not have been any
better, and in fact the choice I made was better even if I didn't use it
the best way. I even noted (in this post) what would have been the
better way. What else is it you are trying to prove here? That I
didn't do it exactly the same way as Clough? Okay. I didn't. He
didn't make a perfect tool either. Just ask him. That I didn't make a perfect tool? Admitted already. That I didn't use the best method? Admitted. That you are smarter than me? Okay, maybe. That doesn't
mean I'm not smart enough. That my method was a failure? I disagree.
My part is not only finished its been tested. The holes in opposing
pieces at a 45 degree angle line up and the pull pins (4 of them) drop
in easily. 8 holes in 4 pieces had to line up 4 times. They do. The mold makes good castings (also tested). If I throw the gage away right after I hit send on this post I'm money ahead because the job got done.
If I offended you by pointing out I had considered the same tool and
that I didn't agree it would have been ideal after I thought about it... sorry. I haven't change my mind though. Ultimately I think the reason
I didn't get a "better" part was unrelated. I think as already detailed
its because its was in a cheap vise.
"Snag" wrote in message news:tu13k8$17l2l$1@dont-email.me...
After watching this discussion , I have decided to interrupt my
current project - a fixture to sharpen the ends of end mills - to make
one of these . Beats trying to figure out why the truck won't run well .
I'm about to just buy an Edelbrock to put on it . The Holley is just
pissin' me off .
Snag
"You can lead a dummy to facts
but you can't make him think."
-------------------------
I found weak V8 cylinders by dribbling water on the exhaust manifold and comparing the drying rates. A thermal imager to more easily identify hot
and cold areas of equipment and the house insulation is on order, my
birthday present. I hope it can reveal yellowjacket nests in the ground.
In the 90's I used the company's thermal and near infrared imagers on electronics but couldn't justify the high price. I solved a problem of
uneven heat transfer by the ancient method of filing and scraping to
fit, which goes quickly on aluminum. The overheating component's warped heatsink was too thin to flycut and I didn't want to tell the engineer
his prized find was defective. That was the only satellite project I was
ever invited to participate in and I did a lot of extra machining at
home to stay on it. My usual jobs were on ground support equipment like portable terminals.
I'd like to know how you made the endmill fixture when you finish. I
gamed several ways to copy mine with the equipment on hand but didn't
really like the insecure dual angled clamping.
On 3/4/2023 8:54 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu0is5$1306o$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/4/2023 3:03 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu019a$11bht$2@dont-email.me...
The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the
center bore (to reach past center). I'd have to raise the vise or mount >>> the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that. LOL. To be >>> fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that
style mic either.
Bob La Londe
---------------------
I lost you. Wasn't the goal to measure if the quadrant cutout had
been milled exactly to the center, horizontally and vertically?
https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/ >>> He used a gage block to measure it. I assumed you would have if you
owned one, and simply tested the Uni-Mike's capability.
****Ultimately you can get better cuts by ->NOT<- dismounting and
remounting the part you are making multiple times. While it may be
possible it increases the chance of operator induced error
exponentially.****
Yes, I did take the part out to measure it. I used a height gage. The
same one I use for measuring tool heights in tool holders for the CNC
mills. By touching the TGP round surface and zeroing you can a quite
accurate measurement. (I'm pretty sure I mentioned i started with a
piece of TGP rod) The funny part here is I could have used that method
in place on the mill, but I had already dismounted the part once. The
mill table being pretty new is quite good enough. My results might have
been better.
Since I cut it to final dimensions as stated by end milling and ->NOT<-
side milling for practical reasons I could not measure it with the mic
you and I both thought of without taking it out of the vise or by boring
a large hole in the table of the mill. While I am not normally opposed
to modifying expensive tools if it makes money I would have had a hard
to justifying to myself making a large hole in the table so the barrel
of the mic could hang down.
I took it out of the vise. I didn't have that mic anyway. I used a
height gage on the surface plate.
I would also point out that I didn't watch ANYBODY'S video step by step
as a tutorial. Its often counter productive as I rarely have exactly
the same tools they have. I knew I needed one for the job, what
tolerances I could live with, and I made one with the tools I had handy.
Yes, there were better methods of measurement. I used one, although I
did not use it in the best way. The mic you and I both thought of was
actually not one of them as the part would still have needed to be
dismounted to use. Even if it would do the job I don't have one. Yes I >> have lots of gage blocks. Building a gage block stack would have been
no better, and has no bearing on the fact that we both considered a tool
that was not actually the optimum tool for the job even though it appear
to be.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. I successfully made the part
the tool was made for and have it on the front bench for packaging now.
I detailed how it was not a perfect tool just for the edification of
others. I pointed out how we both initially thought of the same
measuring tool. I pointed out how that tool would not have been any
better, and in fact the choice I made was better even if I didn't use it
the best way. I even noted (in this post) what would have been the
better way. What else is it you are trying to prove here? That I
didn't do it exactly the same way as Clough? Okay. I didn't. He
didn't make a perfect tool either. Just ask him. That I didn't make a
perfect tool? Admitted already. That I didn't use the best method?
Admitted. That you are smarter than me? Okay, maybe. That doesn't
mean I'm not smart enough. That my method was a failure? I disagree.
My part is not only finished its been tested. The holes in opposing
pieces at a 45 degree angle line up and the pull pins (4 of them) drop
in easily. 8 holes in 4 pieces had to line up 4 times. They do. The
mold makes good castings (also tested). If I throw the gage away right
after I hit send on this post I'm money ahead because the job got done.
If I offended you by pointing out I had considered the same tool and
that I didn't agree it would have been ideal after I thought about it...
sorry. I haven't change my mind though. Ultimately I think the reason
I didn't get a "better" part was unrelated. I think as already detailed
its because its was in a cheap vise.
After watching this discussion , I have decided to interrupt my
current project - a fixture to sharpen the ends of end mills - to make
one of these . Beats trying to figure out why the truck won't run well .
I'm about to just buy an Edelbrock to put on it . The Holley is just
pissin' me off .
On 3/4/2023 8:51 PM, Snag wrote:
On 3/4/2023 8:54 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu0is5$1306o$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/4/2023 3:03 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in message news:tu019a$11bht$2@dont-email.me... >>>>
The barrel would have to go down for the replaceable anvil to go in the >>>> center bore (to reach past center). I'd have to raise the vise or
mount
the collet block on a 2/4/6 block or something like that. LOL. To be >>>> fair It didn't dawn on me right away when I first thought of using that >>>> style mic either.
Bob La Londe
---------------------
I lost you. Wasn't the goal to measure if the quadrant cutout had
been milled exactly to the center, horizontally and vertically?
https://clough42.com/2017/11/30/making-split-cylinder-edge-finding-tool/ >>>>
He used a gage block to measure it. I assumed you would have if you
owned one, and simply tested the Uni-Mike's capability.
****Ultimately you can get better cuts by ->NOT<- dismounting and
remounting the part you are making multiple times. While it may be
possible it increases the chance of operator induced error
exponentially.****
Yes, I did take the part out to measure it. I used a height gage. The >>> same one I use for measuring tool heights in tool holders for the CNC
mills. By touching the TGP round surface and zeroing you can a quite
accurate measurement. (I'm pretty sure I mentioned i started with a
piece of TGP rod) The funny part here is I could have used that method >>> in place on the mill, but I had already dismounted the part once. The
mill table being pretty new is quite good enough. My results might have
been better.
Since I cut it to final dimensions as stated by end milling and ->NOT<-
side milling for practical reasons I could not measure it with the mic
you and I both thought of without taking it out of the vise or by boring >>> a large hole in the table of the mill. While I am not normally opposed >>> to modifying expensive tools if it makes money I would have had a hard
to justifying to myself making a large hole in the table so the barrel
of the mic could hang down.
I took it out of the vise. I didn't have that mic anyway. I used a
height gage on the surface plate.
I would also point out that I didn't watch ANYBODY'S video step by step
as a tutorial. Its often counter productive as I rarely have exactly
the same tools they have. I knew I needed one for the job, what
tolerances I could live with, and I made one with the tools I had handy. >>>
Yes, there were better methods of measurement. I used one, although I
did not use it in the best way. The mic you and I both thought of was
actually not one of them as the part would still have needed to be
dismounted to use. Even if it would do the job I don't have one. Yes I >>> have lots of gage blocks. Building a gage block stack would have been
no better, and has no bearing on the fact that we both considered a tool >>> that was not actually the optimum tool for the job even though it appear >>> to be.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. I successfully made the part
the tool was made for and have it on the front bench for packaging now.
I detailed how it was not a perfect tool just for the edification of
others. I pointed out how we both initially thought of the same
measuring tool. I pointed out how that tool would not have been any
better, and in fact the choice I made was better even if I didn't use it >>> the best way. I even noted (in this post) what would have been the
better way. What else is it you are trying to prove here? That I
didn't do it exactly the same way as Clough? Okay. I didn't. He
didn't make a perfect tool either. Just ask him. That I didn't make a >>> perfect tool? Admitted already. That I didn't use the best method?
Admitted. That you are smarter than me? Okay, maybe. That doesn't
mean I'm not smart enough. That my method was a failure? I disagree. >>> My part is not only finished its been tested. The holes in opposing
pieces at a 45 degree angle line up and the pull pins (4 of them) drop
in easily. 8 holes in 4 pieces had to line up 4 times. They do. The >>> mold makes good castings (also tested). If I throw the gage away right >>> after I hit send on this post I'm money ahead because the job got done.
If I offended you by pointing out I had considered the same tool and
that I didn't agree it would have been ideal after I thought about it... >>> sorry. I haven't change my mind though. Ultimately I think the reason >>> I didn't get a "better" part was unrelated. I think as already detailed >>> its because its was in a cheap vise.
After watching this discussion , I have decided to interrupt my
current project - a fixture to sharpen the ends of end mills - to
make one of these . Beats trying to figure out why the truck won't run
well . I'm about to just buy an Edelbrock to put on it . The Holley is
just pissin' me off .
Excellent choice. I've run a few Holley carbs, and found they run best
if you tinker with them between every speed run. Even if the change is
to the adjustment you set it for three runs ago. LOL
If you decide to buy a Uni-Mike or luck onto a good deal as I did (minus
the anvils) it appears to be able to make this quadrant cutout
measurement on up to its full 1" OD capacity. Otherwise I haven't used
mine enough to justify the retail price.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 59:13:20 |
| Calls: | 6,690 |
| Files: | 12,225 |
| Messages: | 5,345,320 |
