RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Posted by
Kevin Martin
on 2010-12-15 20:24:24 UTC
Tim,
Did I claim "my approach" was superior? That depends on what approach you mean:
If you are inferring that I claimed that my approach to the machining problem (i.e. using rectangular feed stock) was superior, I must not have written clearly enough because I was making no such claim. All I stated was that the approach merited due consideration, which includes a proper evaluation of the financial tradeoffs. It may indeed be the case that collet replacement (due to wear or due to accidental damage) might be more expensive that the time and materials saved using the square stock, but my point is that you don't know until you've done a proper quantified analysis. As for the 1-2 weeks of lost production, this is another thing you have to include in the consideration: how often does this actually occur, and is it better to suffer the downtime, or to suffer the carrying cost of keeping spares for critical parts in stock (vs. going with round stock and avoiding the difficult-to-replace critical part altogether).
If you are referring to my approach of not only "thinking outside the box" but also running with ideas so generated, then yes, I do feel this is a superior approach, and has nothing to do with idle conjecture.
Your exploits or mine over the last 6 years do nothing to change this.
In any case I think this has gone completely OT since (other than the odd reference to the original example) we are now fully into the realm of business management.
I'm not offended at all. I take a sort of smug inner satisfaction when someone I am arguing with tries flashing their credentials to support their argument. In this case all your experience really means is that you would have the input data for the comparative analysis at your fingertips in your specific situation, whereas I would have to spend days digging up the information and making additional assumptions or additional alternatives to the analysis.
-Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of timgoldstein
[...]So the first time you crash out a collet [...] you have to make [...] a new custom collet. Now you have lost 1 - 2 weeks of production. [...]
I have gone from nothing to owning my own 7000 sq ft industrial building, 2 Haas machines, a 120 watt laser, a 3D laser scanner, a 3D printer, and a $100,000 plus inventory in 6 years through a major recession.
What has your approach gotten you in the past 6 years? If you have accomplished more I will consider your approach more seriously.
Now I hope you are not offended, but I am speaking from real world knowledge and risking everything I own. You seem to be making idle conjecture and then saying your approach is superior.
Did I claim "my approach" was superior? That depends on what approach you mean:
If you are inferring that I claimed that my approach to the machining problem (i.e. using rectangular feed stock) was superior, I must not have written clearly enough because I was making no such claim. All I stated was that the approach merited due consideration, which includes a proper evaluation of the financial tradeoffs. It may indeed be the case that collet replacement (due to wear or due to accidental damage) might be more expensive that the time and materials saved using the square stock, but my point is that you don't know until you've done a proper quantified analysis. As for the 1-2 weeks of lost production, this is another thing you have to include in the consideration: how often does this actually occur, and is it better to suffer the downtime, or to suffer the carrying cost of keeping spares for critical parts in stock (vs. going with round stock and avoiding the difficult-to-replace critical part altogether).
If you are referring to my approach of not only "thinking outside the box" but also running with ideas so generated, then yes, I do feel this is a superior approach, and has nothing to do with idle conjecture.
Your exploits or mine over the last 6 years do nothing to change this.
In any case I think this has gone completely OT since (other than the odd reference to the original example) we are now fully into the realm of business management.
I'm not offended at all. I take a sort of smug inner satisfaction when someone I am arguing with tries flashing their credentials to support their argument. In this case all your experience really means is that you would have the input data for the comparative analysis at your fingertips in your specific situation, whereas I would have to spend days digging up the information and making additional assumptions or additional alternatives to the analysis.
-Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of timgoldstein
[...]So the first time you crash out a collet [...] you have to make [...] a new custom collet. Now you have lost 1 - 2 weeks of production. [...]
I have gone from nothing to owning my own 7000 sq ft industrial building, 2 Haas machines, a 120 watt laser, a 3D laser scanner, a 3D printer, and a $100,000 plus inventory in 6 years through a major recession.
What has your approach gotten you in the past 6 years? If you have accomplished more I will consider your approach more seriously.
Now I hope you are not offended, but I am speaking from real world knowledge and risking everything I own. You seem to be making idle conjecture and then saying your approach is superior.
Discussion Thread
timgoldstein
2010-12-12 22:14:31 UTC
CAD experiment idea
Roland Jollivet
2010-12-13 03:34:22 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Jamie Cunningham
2010-12-13 03:56:18 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 05:24:40 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 05:42:10 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 06:09:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment idea
Kevin Martin
2010-12-13 07:04:00 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Stephen Wille Padnos
2010-12-13 07:06:33 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Roland Jollivet
2010-12-13 07:46:25 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
R.L. Wurdack
2010-12-13 07:54:59 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 08:17:23 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 08:53:42 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 09:00:17 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 09:02:56 UTC
Re: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Roland Jollivet
2010-12-13 09:06:29 UTC
[CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 09:17:38 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 12:45:45 UTC
CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 12:49:59 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 13:29:56 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 15:16:30 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 15:34:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 15:39:54 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 16:00:40 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 16:02:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 16:06:50 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 16:25:27 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Michael Fagan
2010-12-13 17:05:04 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment entry
Andy Wander
2010-12-13 17:11:24 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
R.L. Wurdack
2010-12-13 17:24:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 17:29:58 UTC
Re: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Andy Wander
2010-12-13 18:17:03 UTC
RE: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Peter Homann
2010-12-13 18:48:08 UTC
RE: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Andy Wander
2010-12-13 18:50:57 UTC
RE: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 23:23:56 UTC
[CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:00:00 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:17:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:43:39 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:57:27 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 08:44:40 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 09:25:58 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-14 09:27:58 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 10:12:05 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 12:45:23 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 13:39:41 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 15:08:47 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Peter Reilley
2010-12-14 15:25:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 16:57:56 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Brian Worth
2010-12-14 21:49:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Peter Homann
2010-12-14 22:03:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 22:46:21 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
William Thomas
2010-12-15 04:27:56 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-15 04:40:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Kevin Martin
2010-12-15 05:20:51 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 06:23:27 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 06:33:51 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Mike Payson
2010-12-15 06:54:41 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 07:00:39 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Kevin Martin
2010-12-15 07:38:42 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Swiss
2010-12-15 08:26:31 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
CNC 6-axis Designs
2010-12-15 08:29:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-15 10:45:31 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 17:05:59 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Kevin Martin
2010-12-15 20:24:24 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 21:16:03 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 21:17:14 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 08:37:58 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-16 09:07:45 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-16 10:08:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 14:34:40 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 15:17:46 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 16:28:39 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-16 16:52:14 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-16 16:57:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 20:45:14 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
William Thomas
2010-12-16 21:23:48 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 22:13:34 UTC
EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Stephen Wille Padnos
2010-12-17 05:28:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 09:24:52 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 09:31:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 10:06:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jeffrey T. Birt
2010-12-17 10:28:06 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
samcoinc2001
2010-12-17 11:05:31 UTC
EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 19:57:50 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry