Let's Talk About the "Southwest" Roll

scdiveteam said:
Steve,


Thomson Rod equates to " ? "

As I said, I am not a machinist and may make a mistake now and then concerning a term like Thomson Rod as generic.

.

Rick
Click to expand...

If you're gonna spew names and facts around, why not get it accurate? YOU said Thomson and you meant to say that because in your mind it's a standard due to the little knowledge you have. You just didn't think anyone would call you on the specs....
About things involving specs, A little of MY background, which is provable as I'll provide you with a copy of my dd-214 if requested...I was in the army back in the 80's and my job classification (MOS) was 35H, which was 'Precision Measurement Laboratory Specialist'. I was trained in the calibration and repair of almost everything the Army and most branches used.... from a torque wrench to a Tektronics O scope and Spectrum Analyzers. As it's been almost 30 years, I may have forgot some stuff, but remember enough...... As previously mentioned by Canadian Cue...to measure the specs you say you get in your shop, every instrument needs to be certified to be able to measure it and be within specs....annually BTW and done in an environmentally stable environment (lab) for a specific time frame before any measurement take place. THAT was my job, so when you make your wild claims of .0001- .00025,( which keeps changing..).in your shop may sound great to you but you don't even have the basic beginnings nor knowledge to measure that far down. Your gage for testing a cue is a beatup table with cloth on it with fuzz balls bigger than my balls. Sorry to sound condescending, but that's the truth. You want people to believe your so accurate and precise, but you don't have the equipment nor the expertise to support that...plain and simple. When was the last time You used certified gage blocks to calibrate your calipers? hope you didn't handle them with bare hands...Secondly, when have you installed the granite slab on a lab grade metal table and had that setup certified? Then let it acclimate, then using the established protocols, calibrated your dial indicators that ACTUALLY can measure .00001" on their scale? If you haven't then you're only throwing BS comments around. On other sites you have proclaimed your past achievements in a lot of fields and then gave "specifics" for people to look up, but so far those companies you gave and the info has never shown up in any google or any other search engine, so what gives? Sounds like BS and walks like BS....must be BS

NO ONE is saying you build a bad cue...BUT EVERYONE is saying your full of shit about your claims.... just accept it and move on and keep building, just stop the bullshit already.
DAve
 
Dave38 said:
If you're gonna spew names and facts around, why not get it accurate? YOU said Thomson and you meant to say that because in your mind it's a standard due to the little knowledge you have. You just didn't think anyone would call you on the specs....
About things involving specs, A little of MY background, which is provable as I'll provide you with a copy of my dd-214 if requested...I was in the army back in the 80's and my job classification (MOS) was 35H, which was 'Precision Measurement Laboratory Specialist'. I was trained in the calibration and repair of almost everything the Army and most branches used.... from a torque wrench to a Tektronics O scope and Spectrum Analyzers. As it's been almost 30 years, I may have forgot some stuff, but remember enough...... As previously mentioned by Canadian Cue...to measure the specs you say you get in your shop, every instrument needs to be certified to be able to measure it and be within specs....annually BTW and done in an environmentally stable environment (lab) for a specific time frame before any measurement take place. THAT was my job, so when you make your wild claims of .0001- .00025,( which keeps changing..).in your shop may sound great to you but you don't even have the basic beginnings nor knowledge to measure that far down. Your gage for testing a cue is a beatup table with cloth on it with fuzz balls bigger than my balls. Sorry to sound condescending, but that's the truth. You want people to believe your so accurate and precise, but you don't have the equipment nor the expertise to support that...plain and simple. When was the last time You used certified gage blocks to calibrate your calipers? hope you didn't handle them with bare hands...Secondly, when have you installed the granite slab on a lab grade metal table and had that setup certified? Then let it acclimate, then using the established protocols, calibrated your dial indicators that ACTUALLY can measure .00001" on their scale? If you haven't then you're only throwing BS comments around. On other sites you have proclaimed your past achievements in a lot of fields and then gave "specifics" for people to look up, but so far those companies you gave and the info has never shown up in any google or any other search engine, so what gives? Sounds like BS and walks like BS....must be BS

NO ONE is saying you build a bad cue...BUT EVERYONE is saying your full of shit about your claims.... just accept it and move on and keep building, just stop the bullshit already.
DAve
Click to expand...

Dave,

I spent two years working as a precision inspector at Crane Packing Company before my career as an underwater technician as a Commercial Diver performing every trade and hundreds of specialty skill sets for over 31 years. That experience along with my many certifications and my flawless track record qualifies me to have an opinion with a solid foundation. Not he said she said gotcha bantering.

During my time as an inspector I took two college classes in Dimential Metroloygy. Those 2 certifications qualified me to inspect aircraft and nuclear service parts that were 100% inpection items. It also gained me axis to the clean room inspection lab.

They had a granite surface plate the size of a pool table and every mic and indicatior was calibrated to a national standard on dated time basis and calibration stickers were attached. I worked with profilometers, optical comparators, pneumatic air gauging equipment as well as precision no and go gauges for hole size inspections and Jo Blocks for transfering precision dimensions. So I get what you are saying as I have had certified training and experience. So when I use the word Thomson Rod as a generic term it is useless to try to paint me as some inept person that does not have a clue. Purely an obfuscation tactic in discussions that some here like to press.

With that said, other than not having my .0005 indicator calabrated, what does lab standards have to do with zeroing a nose held in a shimmed tapered collet in a buck chuck adjusted to .0002. Also what does a granite surface plate and Jo blocks have to do with boring a hole then usinging a 10" long .3775 reamer to follow a nominal undersized hole to expand it to that nominal size hole which is slightly oversized to the pin's barrel OD? The reamer is the standard and it is slightly oversized to compensate for some Cumulative error that does exist.

Other than the use of my mag indicator that is not certified or calibrated ( so sue me ), I really don't see what point you are making by bringing up lab standards as such. I understand Cumulative error and my written procedures require me to hit .00025 to zero indicated on my pin TRO. It does not change as you suggest because it is written in my manual that i follow. Yesterday I did a pin install and nailed the zero line with only a hair of a wiggle on the line.

We are building pool cues here not gland plates for reactor feed water pumps. As I said I do understand Cumulative error factors and don't really expect perfection as an end result every time. But now and then these Cumulative errors can work in a positive direction and perfection can and does exist. That being said, why not try to expect a zero TRO end result every time. If you end up with even a .0005 situation consistently as a reality, it is still better than using .001 or worsre as acceptable. I just don't get all the attracks and pessimism that has abounded here because Someone stands up and strives to use a method that is non convential to attain a performance standard that reaches a little higher.

This dance seeking a higher standard has nothing really to do with something that is perceptible to someone who uses my cue as an end user. It does have everything to do with my attitude and psyche as person who strives to raise the bar of expectation on every detail to the nines.

Sorry if that bothers some individuals. Tiger Woods expects to win and believes he will win every tournament he enters. He knows beforehand that winning only 5 per year is goal that it as good as it can get with all competition considered. Knowing that he still expects to win every time he tees it up.

Performance standards begins with a culture of total belief and commitment to strive to raise the bar of expectations. Only a loser with low self esteem and low intellect would argue with that last statement. Who wants to be the first? LOL

JMO,

Rick
 
Last edited:
If that tailstock is so accurate, my are there "cumulative" errors ?
10" reamer ? I have no clue why it needs to be that long for 1.125" deep hole .
 
scdiveteam said:
Dave,

I spent two years working as a precision inspector at Crane Packing Company before my career as an underwater technician as a Commercial Diver performing every trade and hundreds of specialty skill sets for over 31 years. That experience along with my many certifications and my flawless track record qualifies me to have an opinion with a solid foundation. Not he said she said gotcha bantering.

During my time as an inspector I took two college classes in Dimential Metroloygy. Those 2 certifications qualified me to inspect aircraft and nuclear service parts that were 100% inpection items. It also gained me axis to the clean room inspection lab.

They had a granite surface plate the size of a pool table and every mic and indicatior was calibrated to a national standard on dated time basis and calibration stickers were attached. I worked with profilometers, optical comparators, pneumatic air gauging equipment as well as precision no and go gauges for hole size inspections and Jo Blocks for transfering precision dimensions. So I get what you are saying as I have had certified training and experience. So when I use the word Thomson Rod as a generic term it is useless to try to paint me as some inept person that does not have a clue. Purely an obfuscation tactic in discussions that some here like to press.

With that said, other than not having my .0005 indicator calabrated, what does lab standards have to do with zeroing a nose held in a shimmed tapered collet in a buck chuck adjusted to .0002. Also what does a granite surface plate and Jo blocks have to do with boring a hole then usinging a 10" long .3775 reamer to follow a nominal undersized hole to expand it to that nominal size hole which is slightly oversized to the pin's barrel OD? The reamer is the standard and it is slightly oversized to compensate for some Cumulative error that does exist.

Other than the use of my mag indicator that is not certified or calibrated ( so sue me ), I really don't see what point you are making by bringing up lab standards as such. I understand Cumulative error and my written procedures require me to hit .00025 to zero indicated on my pin TRO. It does not change as you suggest because it is written in my manual that i follow. Yesterday I did a pin install and nailed the zero line with only a hair of a wiggle on the line.

We are building pool cues here not gland plates for reactor feed water pumps. As I said I do understand Cumulative error factors and don't really expect perfection as an end result every time. But now and then these Cumulative errors can work in a positive direction and perfection can and does exist. That being said, why not try to expect a zero TRO end result every time. If you end up with even a .0005 situation consistently as a reality, it is still better than using .001 or worsre as acceptable. I just don't get all the attracks and pessimism that has abounded here because Someone stands up and strives to use a method that is non convential to attain a performance standard that reaches a little higher.

This dance seeking a higher standard has nothing really to do with something that is perceptible to someone who uses my cue as an end user. It does have everything to do with my attitude and psyche as person who strives to raise the bar of expectation on every detail to the nines.

Sorry if that bothers some individuals. Tiger Woods expects to win and believes he will win every tournament he enters. He knows beforehand that winning only 5 per year is goal that it as good as it can get with all competition considered. Knowing that he still expects to win every time he tees it up.

Performance standards begins with a culture of total belief and commitment to strive to raise the bar of expectations. Only a loser with low self esteem and low intellect would argue with that last statement. Who wants to be the first? LOL

JMO,

Rick
Click to expand...

Too many big words.....

Randy-not nearly flawless unfortunately
 
JoeyInCali said:
If that tailstock is so accurate, my are there "cumulative" errors ?
10" reamer ? I have no clue why it needs to be that long for 1.125" deep hole .
Click to expand...

Joey,

The longer reamer allows for a degree of deflection that helps the reamer to follow the bore better than a stubby reamer with no deflection.

The longer one will compensate better when expanding the bore and adjusts a little for tail stock or quill variance.

At least that is what I was told by a tooling engineer with over 40 years of experience.

JMO,

Rick
 
scdiveteam said:
Joey,

The longer reamer allows for a degree of deflection that helps the reamer to follow the bore better than a stubby reamer with no deflection.

The longer one will compensate better when expanding the bore and adjusts a little for tail stock or quill variance.

At least that is what I was told by a tooling engineer with over 40 years of experience.

JMO,

Rick
Click to expand...
Good, now you can bore that hole at .3125 down to the bottom and .372" for the LOCATING barrel.
If your tailstock is dead nuts , there should be no variance. If there is variance, then it's not dead nuts .
Even if you used a co-axial to indicate the quill.
 
scdiveteam said:
Click to expand...

This picture is all the proof one needs to determine that you have no place to talk about accuracy in the 0.0001' range... your equipment is covered in a layer of sawdust, epoxy and rust.. How much does that layer of crap measure? How can anyone make such claims and then show us a picture of this setup??? Rick I believe you to be nice guy and have nothing personal against you. I just do not understand what you have to gain by making such preposterous claims regarding tolerances. Why don't you put one of your cue butts between two centers, then find your most accurate dial and stick it on your carriage. Then run it in several places on your cue, I will even be fair and say to use a freshly made cue that has not moved substantially with the weather. Then show us a video of that. If you can keep your dial at +-0.002" (the entire length of the the cue) I will be impressed. And please don't even talk about tenths of a thou..
 
Last edited:
Rick, I think you are the new most interesting man in the world. I'm serious...I swear...honest. So...


boast.jpg
 
Canadian cue said:
This picture is all the proof one needs to determine that you have no place to talk about accuracy in the 0.0001' range... your equipment is covered in a layer of sawdust, epoxy and rust.. How much does that layer of crap measure? How can anyone make such claims and then show us a picture of this setup??? Rick I believe you to be nice guy and have nothing personal against you. I just do not understand what you have to gain by making such preposterous claims regarding tolerances. Why don't you put one of your cue butts between two centers, then find your most accurate dial and stick it on your carriage. Then run it in several places on your cue, I will even be fair and say to use a freshly made cue that has not moved substantially with the weather. Then show us a video of that. If you can keep your dial at +-0.002" (the entire length of the the cue) I will be impressed. And please don't even talk about tenths of a thou..
Click to expand...

H en H,

I really respect and look up to Bob (DZ) as he is a professional machinist and CM.

I am only a guy who uses machines to build cues and am honest about that.

Watch his pin install video and observe his saw dust ect. More important read the statement on the screen at the end concerning the TRO.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s_lgdexpN1Y

Who in there right mind would tweak his pin better than .001 as the screen statement asks. Well let me step up a raise my hand. Raising the bar of expectation hangs in that space or mind set.

My method does not mirror Bob's more convential steps but he shares the desire for the lowest possible TRO. He got .001 on that one and accepted it but admits he got sloppy on that one. That is a great attitude.

What I did notice on his offering was that it did not look like his alignment barrel and hole offered too much resistance when he screwed it in. So my guess is that Bob leaves a little wiggle room to bang the pin a hair if he needs too from time to time .Just saying!

BTW, There is no epoxy on my beds where it would matter. So what's your point?

Your thoughts and offerings are always circular or meaningless.

BTW, did you not promise to disengage from the so called "shit show". Now your back, what is with that! LOL.

JMO,

Rick
 
Last edited:
scdiveteam said:
H en H,

I really respect and look up to Bob (DZ) as he is a professional machinist and CM.

I am only a guy who uses machines to build cues and am honest about that.

Watch his pin install video and observe his saw dust ect. More important read the statement on the screen at the end concerning the TRO.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s_lgdexpN1Y

Who in there right mind would tweak his pin better than .001 as the screen statement asks. Well let me step up a raise my hand. Raising the bar of expectation hangs in that space or mind set.

My method does not mirror Bob's more convential steps but he shares the desire for the lowest possible TRO. He got .001 on that one and accepted it but admits he got sloppy on that one. That is a great attitude.

What I did notice on his offering was that it did not look like his alignment barrel and hole offered too much resistance when he screwed it in. So my guess is that Bob leaves a little wiggle room to bang the pin a hair if he needs too from time to time .Just saying!

BTW, There is no epoxy on my beds where it would matter. So what's your point?

Your thoughts and offerings are always circular or meaningless.
You are entitled to your opinion
BTW, did you not promise to disengage from the so called "shit show". Now your back, what is with that! LOL.
Where exactly did you read that?


Rick
Click to expand...

Rick I am a Journeyman Machinist and been working as a Machinist for 20 years now. I also have been building cues for over ten of those years. I do not consider myself an expert cue maker but I know enough to know that your machining techniques are questionable at best and your prolific use of glues as filler in all your operations speak volumes of your craftsmanship. So yes now I will disengage because trying to explain anything to you is futile and despite EVERYONE telling you that your claims of tolerance are BS you still insist on digging yourself deeper. So happy digging and good cuemaking to you.
 
scdiveteam said:
H en H,
I really respect and look up to Bob (DZ) as he is a professional machinist and CM.
Watch his pin install video and observe his saw dust ect. More important read the statement on the screen at the end concerning the TRO.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s_lgdexpN1Y
Who in there right mind would tweak his pin better than .001 as the screen statement asks. Well let me step up a raise my hand. Raising the bar of expectation hangs in that space or mind set.
My method does not mirror Bob's more convential steps but he shares the desire for the lowest possible TRO. He got .001 on that one and accepted it but admits he got sloppy on that one. That is a great attitude.
What I did notice on his offering was that it did not look like his alignment barrel and hole offered too much resistance when he screwed it in. So my guess is that Bob leaves a little wiggle room to bang the pin a hair if he needs too from time to time .Just saying!
Rick
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words, Rick, but if you're going to drag my video into this, you're going to have to put up with my 2¢

The sawdust on my lathe was generated when I drilled the lead hole. No sawdust shows at the start of the video. Not a big deal but I don't think the appearance of my lathe and yours is a valid comparison. Just sayin'.

Shooting for a dead-nuts pin install is EVERY cuemaker's goal, not yours alone. Accepting .001" TIR is much more realistic & very reasonable. My "admission" of sloppiness at .001" TIR was facetious but I realize now that it wasn't apparent in the video.

My pin installs quite easily because I leave .002" total clearance between the pin & the bore (.382" into .384"). The live-tooled hole is smoother, rounder & more accurate than any drilled hole. This accuracy enables me to slather the pin with epoxy for proper embedment (thanks for that, Rick!) while allowing the locating barrel to do its job.

I do not need to "bang" my pins into location because they are already there; moreover, they WANT to be where they are. I expect my pins to come out within .001" TIR because they HAVE to when they are installed in accurate holes.

I disagree with forcing them somewhere they don't fall naturally. In fact, I probably COULDN'T nudge them more than .001" because of the close fit on the locating barrel. Again: let the locating barrel do the job for which it was designed.

While this might sound like heresy, I no longer even check my pins for runout. I simply turn on my lathe at 800 rpm & look at the pin. That's enough to tell me if I have a problem or not.
 
Last edited:
scdiveteam said:
Joey,

The longer reamer allows for a degree of deflection that helps the reamer to follow the bore better than a stubby reamer with no deflection.

The longer one will compensate better when expanding the bore and adjusts a little for tail stock or quill variance.

At least that is what I was told by a tooling engineer with over 40 years of experience.

JMO,

Rick
Click to expand...
Actually, if one reads up on the subject, as I just did,( I'm not a machinist) If the reamer doesn't line up with the bored/drilled hole due to improperly aligned equipment and using a long shank, you push the shank of the reamer over or up or down slightly to start the hole, it will ream out to a larger dia. then the size of the reamer and possibly taper it also. The fluted section doesn't flex with the path of the hole, it will not track right. If the hole alignment is not correct with respect to the reamer in the tailstock, a floating holder should be used as this is the only way a reamer can follow the hole correctly. Read pages 413-416.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ou...epage&q=why are reamer shanks so long&f=false
Hope this helps, it did for me.
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top