On 3/7/2012 7:21 AM, knuttle wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 3:14 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2012 7:38 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a
>>>>> fudge-factor built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over
>>>>> their rated capacity, or 50%, or even 200%.
>>>>
>>>> Correction: they are *supposed to* stand such increases over their
>>>> rated capacity. If the casters under discussion are those available
>>>> for a few bucks at Horrible Fright, I think it's something of an
>>>> open question whether their actual load-bearing capacity even
>>>> reaches that on the label, let alone exceeds it by some presumed but
>>>> unspecified -- and unknown -- margin of safety.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is ample evidence to suggest that, from drywall to baby formula,
>>> there is no word for "safety" in Chinese, at least when it concerns
>>> exports.
>>
>> One might blame the on-shore "manufacturers" that spec this stuff and are
>> supposed to be overseeing the manufacturing process.
>>
> Having worked in the Quality Assurance Department of a large
> manufacturer I have learned over 50 years you can not inspect in
> quality. It you are manufacturing an item, The best an inspection
> program can do with a reasonable sample size is about a 0.5% (5 out of
> 1000) of death threatening errors. (Based on Military inspection
> standards which are mathematically calculated and based on a couple
> hundred years of experience)
>
> The individual operator in the manufacturing process controls the
> quality, regardless of how much overseeing and inspection take place.
Correct however the importer can simply drop that supplier. The
importer is still in charge as to the what he sees as an acceptable
defect percentage.
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:43:48 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 3/7/2012 7:21 AM, knuttle wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 3:14 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2012 7:38 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a
>>>>>> fudge-factor built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over
>>>>>> their rated capacity, or 50%, or even 200%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correction: they are *supposed to* stand such increases over their
>>>>> rated capacity. If the casters under discussion are those available
>>>>> for a few bucks at Horrible Fright, I think it's something of an
>>>>> open question whether their actual load-bearing capacity even
>>>>> reaches that on the label, let alone exceeds it by some presumed but
>>>>> unspecified -- and unknown -- margin of safety.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is ample evidence to suggest that, from drywall to baby formula,
>>>> there is no word for "safety" in Chinese, at least when it concerns
>>>> exports.
>>>
>>> One might blame the on-shore "manufacturers" that spec this stuff and are
>>> supposed to be overseeing the manufacturing process.
>>>
>> Having worked in the Quality Assurance Department of a large
>> manufacturer I have learned over 50 years you can not inspect in
>> quality. It you are manufacturing an item, The best an inspection
>> program can do with a reasonable sample size is about a 0.5% (5 out of
>> 1000) of death threatening errors. (Based on Military inspection
>> standards which are mathematically calculated and based on a couple
>> hundred years of experience)
Perzactly. I had several discussions with my QA boss back in '75. I
finally took in a humorous cartoon with me when he called me into his
office to ask me to sign off on a scratched faceplate. "Quality is
like oats..." He laughed and signed it off himself. I quit shortly
after that. I got so bloody negative in that job it nearly killed me.
>> The individual operator in the manufacturing process controls the
>> quality, regardless of how much overseeing and inspection take place.
>
>Correct however the importer can simply drop that supplier. The
>importer is still in charge as to the what he sees as an acceptable
>defect percentage.
Contractual agreements stifle a lot of that, as do critical timings.
You can't sell any product you don't have, so if you bounce all of the
supplier's work, you're SOL. 'Tis a very nasty circle.
--
Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
-- Robert J. Sawyer
Doug Miller wrote:
> Gramp's shop <[email protected]> wrote in news:FZd5r.26576$2q1.16882
> @newsfe06.iad:
>
>> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel
>> base be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds?
>
> 1320, assuming:
> a) the weight is evenly distributed across all four wheels
> b) the frame is capable of bearing that load
> c) you really want to load the casters to their rated limit
>
> If the weight is not evenly distributed -- which is likely to be the
> case with a lathe, since the headstock, motor, drive assembly, etc.
> are all at one end -- then less, in proportion to the distribution.
>
> Suppose, for instance, that 60% of the weight is at one end, and 40%
> at the other. No two
> wheels can bear more than 660 pounds, so at the heavy end, 660 pounds
> = 60% of the total,
> so the maximum that can be supported is 1100 pounds, 660 on one pair
> and 440 on the
> other.
>
Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a fudge-factor
built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over their rated capacity,
or 50%, or even 200%.
Larger wheels/casters will bear a greater load (usually) plus make the thing
even more mobile.
The OP is likely okay, but, nevertheless, he should keep his toes from under
the thing.
On 3/6/2012 9:20 AM, Bill Leonhardt wrote:
> On Mar 5, 8:44 pm, Gramp's shop<[email protected]> wrote:
>> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel base
>> be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds? I need to build a mobile base with four
>> braked caster wheels for my new lathe and plan to use around 500 lbs of
>> sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Larry
>
> All the suggestions you have received about wheel rating apply as well
> as the non-uniformity of the load.
>
> Here is another consideration: When moving the lathe on an uneven
> floor (even a little uneven) there will be times when only three
> wheels support the load and , Murphy's law, it is only one wheel on
> the heavy end.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Bill
Thanks, guys. All good suggestions. The lathe weighs about 80 pounds
and the stand about 40. Adding about 300 pounds of sandbags for some
added stability. 1,320 lb aggregate capacity ought to serve me well.
On Mar 5, 8:44=A0pm, Gramp's shop <[email protected]> wrote:
> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel base
> be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds? =A0I need to build a mobile base with fou=
r
> braked caster wheels for my new lathe and plan to use around 500 lbs of
> sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration.
>
> TIA
>
> Larry
All the suggestions you have received about wheel rating apply as well
as the non-uniformity of the load.
Here is another consideration: When moving the lathe on an uneven
floor (even a little uneven) there will be times when only three
wheels support the load and , Murphy's law, it is only one wheel on
the heavy end.
Good luck,
Bill
On 3/8/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 9:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Snip
>
>
>>
>>
>> Still waiting for the Wal-Mart dog biscuits advertising "now with extra
>> melamine"
>>
>> -BR
>>
>
> You will probably see that label in California first. Followed by the
> claim that it will cause caner if you consume it in California.
Simple, don't consume it in California
Jim in Milwaukee
On 3/7/2012 9:21 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:43:48 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/7/2012 7:21 AM, knuttle wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2012 3:14 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2012 7:38 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a
>>>>>>> fudge-factor built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over
>>>>>>> their rated capacity, or 50%, or even 200%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correction: they are *supposed to* stand such increases over their
>>>>>> rated capacity. If the casters under discussion are those available
>>>>>> for a few bucks at Horrible Fright, I think it's something of an
>>>>>> open question whether their actual load-bearing capacity even
>>>>>> reaches that on the label, let alone exceeds it by some presumed but
>>>>>> unspecified -- and unknown -- margin of safety.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is ample evidence to suggest that, from drywall to baby formula,
>>>>> there is no word for "safety" in Chinese, at least when it concerns
>>>>> exports.
>>>>
>>>> One might blame the on-shore "manufacturers" that spec this stuff and are
>>>> supposed to be overseeing the manufacturing process.
>>>>
>>> Having worked in the Quality Assurance Department of a large
>>> manufacturer I have learned over 50 years you can not inspect in
>>> quality. It you are manufacturing an item, The best an inspection
>>> program can do with a reasonable sample size is about a 0.5% (5 out of
>>> 1000) of death threatening errors. (Based on Military inspection
>>> standards which are mathematically calculated and based on a couple
>>> hundred years of experience)
>
> Perzactly. I had several discussions with my QA boss back in '75. I
> finally took in a humorous cartoon with me when he called me into his
> office to ask me to sign off on a scratched faceplate. "Quality is
> like oats..." He laughed and signed it off himself. I quit shortly
> after that. I got so bloody negative in that job it nearly killed me.
>
>
>>> The individual operator in the manufacturing process controls the
>>> quality, regardless of how much overseeing and inspection take place.
>>
>> Correct however the importer can simply drop that supplier. The
>> importer is still in charge as to the what he sees as an acceptable
>> defect percentage.
>
> Contractual agreements stifle a lot of that, as do critical timings.
> You can't sell any product you don't have, so if you bounce all of the
> supplier's work, you're SOL. 'Tis a very nasty circle.
And thankfully contractual agreements will dictate or should dictate the
level of quality. If you only have one supplier of a product you might
want to rethink your long term goals.
In many cases the distributor will accept a product with the expectation
of defects to get better pricing and he himself,not the manufacturer,
stands behind the product.
> --
> Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
> -- Robert J. Sawyer
Gramp's shop <[email protected]> wrote in news:FZd5r.26576$2q1.16882
@newsfe06.iad:
> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel base
> be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds?
1320, assuming:
a) the weight is evenly distributed across all four wheels
b) the frame is capable of bearing that load
c) you really want to load the casters to their rated limit
If the weight is not evenly distributed -- which is likely to be the case with a lathe, since the
headstock, motor, drive assembly, etc. are all at one end -- then less, in proportion to the
distribution.
Suppose, for instance, that 60% of the weight is at one end, and 40% at the other. No two
wheels can bear more than 660 pounds, so at the heavy end, 660 pounds = 60% of the total,
so the maximum that can be supported is 1100 pounds, 660 on one pair and 440 on the
other.
> I need to build a mobile base with four
> braked caster wheels for my new lathe and plan to use around 500 lbs of
> sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration.
You could, of course, adjust the sandbags as needed to produce an even distribution.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a fudge-factor
> built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over their rated capacity,
> or 50%, or even 200%.
Correction: they are *supposed to* stand such increases over their rated capacity. If the
casters under discussion are those available for a few bucks at Horrible Fright, I think it's
something of an open question whether their actual load-bearing capacity even reaches that
on the label, let alone exceeds it by some presumed but unspecified -- and unknown -- margin
of safety.
On 3/6/2012 6:36 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 6:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a
>> fudge-factor
>> built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over their rated
>> capacity,
>> or 50%, or even 200%.
>
> Unless made in China, then the fudge factor may work the other way.
No shit! ... LOL
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 18:44:04 -0700, Gramp's shop wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel base
> be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds? I need to build a mobile base with four
> braked caster wheels for my new lathe and plan to use around 500 lbs of
> sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration.
>
> TIA
>
> Larry
You need to design for only two of the casters carrying the load (think
uneven floor). Three points define a plane, but when the load toggles between
two of the four wheels, the other two will be carrying 100% of the load
(although this condition is very transitory). Most of the stress will be
applied when you are wheeling the lathe around.
-BR
Swingman wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 7:38 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a
>>> fudge-factor built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over
>>> their rated capacity, or 50%, or even 200%.
>>
>> Correction: they are *supposed to* stand such increases over their
>> rated capacity. If the casters under discussion are those available
>> for a few bucks at Horrible Fright, I think it's something of an
>> open question whether their actual load-bearing capacity even
>> reaches that on the label, let alone exceeds it by some presumed but
>> unspecified -- and unknown -- margin of safety.
>
>
> There is ample evidence to suggest that, from drywall to baby formula,
> there is no word for "safety" in Chinese, at least when it concerns
> exports.
One might blame the on-shore "manufacturers" that spec this stuff and are
supposed to be overseeing the manufacturing process.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:44:04 -0600, Gramp's shop <[email protected]>
wrote:
>If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel base
>be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds? I need to build a mobile base with four
>braked caster wheels for my new lathe and plan to use around 500 lbs of
>sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration.
All caster ratings I've seen are by the wheel, so 1320 is your figure.
--
Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
-- Robert J. Sawyer
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 06:59:23 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> On 3/7/2012 7:21 AM, knuttle wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 3:14 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2012 7:38 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a
>>>>>> fudge-factor built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over
>>>>>> their rated capacity, or 50%, or even 200%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correction: they are *supposed to* stand such increases over their
>>>>> rated capacity. If the casters under discussion are those available
>>>>> for a few bucks at Horrible Fright, I think it's something of an
>>>>> open question whether their actual load-bearing capacity even
>>>>> reaches that on the label, let alone exceeds it by some presumed but
>>>>> unspecified -- and unknown -- margin of safety.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is ample evidence to suggest that, from drywall to baby formula,
>>>> there is no word for "safety" in Chinese, at least when it concerns
>>>> exports.
>>>
>>> One might blame the on-shore "manufacturers" that spec this stuff and are
>>> supposed to be overseeing the manufacturing process.
>>>
>> Having worked in the Quality Assurance Department of a large
>> manufacturer I have learned over 50 years you can not inspect in
>> quality. It you are manufacturing an item, The best an inspection
>> program can do with a reasonable sample size is about a 0.5% (5 out of
>> 1000) of death threatening errors. (Based on Military inspection
>> standards which are mathematically calculated and based on a couple
>> hundred years of experience)
>>
>> The individual operator in the manufacturing process controls the
>> quality, regardless of how much overseeing and inspection take place.
>
> And, as with the case of "organic certification" of foodstuffs imported
> into this country from China, the specifications which need to be met
> and implemented to gain the certification label have never been
> translated into Mandarin, or any of the other myriad languages in China.
>
> Corporations don't sweat the small stuff, they just buy a clowngressman.
>
> One of these days it may become apparent to the naive 99% just what a
> fucking they're getting from corporations and their congressional lapdogs.
>
> Then again, maybe not ...
>
>
Funny how some Chinese products interpret regulations and certifications.
Statements like "Meets FCC class C regulations for RFI" etc. are so common on
everything electronic you buy nowadays that you don't give them a second
thought, Ideally the device was built and shielded to meet these
specifications. I bought some laptop power supplies for some LED light
projects I'm building and the following was written on the body of the
supplies:
WARNING
1) This device may not cause harmful interference. (Oooh, I'm scared!)
2) This device must accept any interference received, including interference
that may cause undesired operation.
At first glance it looks like they interpreted the FCC regulations to mean
that they must be printed on the device and not actually be followed in the
design of the device....
Still waiting for the Wal-Mart dog biscuits advertising "now with extra
melamine"
-BR
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:12:42 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/6/2012 6:36 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 6:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>
>
>>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a
>>> fudge-factor
>>> built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over their rated
>>> capacity,
>>> or 50%, or even 200%.
>>
>> Unless made in China, then the fudge factor may work the other way.
>
>No shit! ... LOL
I sure wouldn't push the specs of a caster, US or Chiwanese.
It doesn't pay.
--
Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
-- Robert J. Sawyer
On 3/7/2012 7:21 AM, knuttle wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 3:14 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2012 7:38 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a
>>>>> fudge-factor built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over
>>>>> their rated capacity, or 50%, or even 200%.
>>>>
>>>> Correction: they are *supposed to* stand such increases over their
>>>> rated capacity. If the casters under discussion are those available
>>>> for a few bucks at Horrible Fright, I think it's something of an
>>>> open question whether their actual load-bearing capacity even
>>>> reaches that on the label, let alone exceeds it by some presumed but
>>>> unspecified -- and unknown -- margin of safety.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is ample evidence to suggest that, from drywall to baby formula,
>>> there is no word for "safety" in Chinese, at least when it concerns
>>> exports.
>>
>> One might blame the on-shore "manufacturers" that spec this stuff and are
>> supposed to be overseeing the manufacturing process.
>>
> Having worked in the Quality Assurance Department of a large
> manufacturer I have learned over 50 years you can not inspect in
> quality. It you are manufacturing an item, The best an inspection
> program can do with a reasonable sample size is about a 0.5% (5 out of
> 1000) of death threatening errors. (Based on Military inspection
> standards which are mathematically calculated and based on a couple
> hundred years of experience)
>
> The individual operator in the manufacturing process controls the
> quality, regardless of how much overseeing and inspection take place.
And, as with the case of "organic certification" of foodstuffs imported
into this country from China, the specifications which need to be met
and implemented to gain the certification label have never been
translated into Mandarin, or any of the other myriad languages in China.
Corporations don't sweat the small stuff, they just buy a clowngressman.
One of these days it may become apparent to the naive 99% just what a
fucking they're getting from corporations and their congressional lapdogs.
Then again, maybe not ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 3/5/2012 9:10 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Gramp's shop<[email protected]> wrote in news:FZd5r.26576$2q1.16882
> @newsfe06.iad:
>
>> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel base
>> be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds?
>
> 1320, assuming:
> a) the weight is evenly distributed across all four wheels
> b) the frame is capable of bearing that load
> c) you really want to load the casters to their rated limit
>
> If the weight is not evenly distributed -- which is likely to be the case with a lathe, since the
> headstock, motor, drive assembly, etc. are all at one end -- then less, in proportion to the
> distribution.
>
> Suppose, for instance, that 60% of the weight is at one end, and 40% at the other. No two
> wheels can bear more than 660 pounds, so at the heavy end, 660 pounds = 60% of the total,
> so the maximum that can be supported is 1100 pounds, 660 on one pair and 440 on the
> other.
>
>> I need to build a mobile base with four
>> braked caster wheels for my new lathe and plan to use around 500 lbs of
>> sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration.
>
> You could, of course, adjust the sandbags as needed to produce an even distribution.
While the 1320# may be correct for a static load, I think the vibration
will cause a faster deterioration of the castors, thus decreasing the
load they will support.
Have you considered other methods of damping the vibration such as
springs, rubber shims, etc. ie placing the lath on a secondary top and
supporting the secondary top with the dampening system.
While not the weight you are looking at, I find that my grinder sounds
better and I can keep thing on the bench, when I place rubber shims
between it and the work bench.
I have a workbench that is a 30" X 52", it has a shelf and small
cabinets at each end. The base and the top perimeter is made out of 2X4
with half lap joints. I suspect the average weigh on the wheels is a
little over 400#. (Lots of tools, other junk, and there is a lot of
space to fill.)
I used castors with about a 300 pound rating. With a static load,
these castors served me well for about 15 years. When they died the
rubber split radially and basically fill apart.
In news:[email protected],
Michael Joel <[email protected]> typed:
> Gramp's shop wrote:
>
>> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a
>> four-wheel base be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds? I need
>> to build a mobile base with four braked caster wheels
>> for my new lathe and plan to use around 500 lbs of
>> sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration. TIA
>>
>> Larry
>
> That is correct - if weight is distributed evenly.
And it's always on perfectly level floors. There's something very wrong if
you need all that weight to dampen vibrations.
Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a fudge-factor
built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over their rated capacity,
or 50%, or even 200%.
Larger wheels/casters will bear a greater load (usually) plus make the thing
even more mobile.
The OP is likely okay, but, nevertheless, he should keep his toes from under
the thing.
**********************************
I second the larger wheel size comment. The bigger they are, the less
problem there will be getting over some strips of wood or sawdust, or cracks
and bumps in the floor.
There always are some things in the way, unless you carefully sweep just
before you move the unit.
Also, I aim at no more than 50% of the rated load on the wheels. It will
move much more easily than a unit right at the wheel's load maximum.
-- Jim in NC
On 3/6/2012 3:14 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 7:38 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a
>>>> fudge-factor built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over
>>>> their rated capacity, or 50%, or even 200%.
>>>
>>> Correction: they are *supposed to* stand such increases over their
>>> rated capacity. If the casters under discussion are those available
>>> for a few bucks at Horrible Fright, I think it's something of an
>>> open question whether their actual load-bearing capacity even
>>> reaches that on the label, let alone exceeds it by some presumed but
>>> unspecified -- and unknown -- margin of safety.
>>
>>
>> There is ample evidence to suggest that, from drywall to baby formula,
>> there is no word for "safety" in Chinese, at least when it concerns
>> exports.
>
> One might blame the on-shore "manufacturers" that spec this stuff and are
> supposed to be overseeing the manufacturing process.
>
Having worked in the Quality Assurance Department of a large
manufacturer I have learned over 50 years you can not inspect in
quality. It you are manufacturing an item, The best an inspection
program can do with a reasonable sample size is about a 0.5% (5 out of
1000) of death threatening errors. (Based on Military inspection
standards which are mathematically calculated and based on a couple
hundred years of experience)
The individual operator in the manufacturing process controls the
quality, regardless of how much overseeing and inspection take place.
On 3/5/2012 8:44 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel base
> be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds? I need to build a mobile base with four
> braked caster wheels for my new lathe and plan to use around 500 lbs of
> sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration.
What everyone else said, but I would build a cabinet with drawers and
such and weigh it down with tools and whatever. My shop has no room for
sand bags.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 3/8/2012 3:32 PM, Jim in Milwaukee wrote:
>
>
> On 3/8/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 9:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Snip
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Still waiting for the Wal-Mart dog biscuits advertising "now with extra
>>> melamine"
>>>
>>> -BR
>>>
>>
>> You will probably see that label in California first. Followed by the
>> claim that it will cause caner if you consume it in California.
>
> Simple, don't consume it in California
>
> Jim in Milwaukee
California has been know to be a source of cancer for some years. We
always had trouble with it when I was working in Regulatory.
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:37:45 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 3/7/2012 9:21 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:43:48 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>> Correct however the importer can simply drop that supplier. The
>>> importer is still in charge as to the what he sees as an acceptable
>>> defect percentage.
>>
>> Contractual agreements stifle a lot of that, as do critical timings.
>> You can't sell any product you don't have, so if you bounce all of the
>> supplier's work, you're SOL. 'Tis a very nasty circle.
>
>And thankfully contractual agreements will dictate or should dictate the
>level of quality.
Key word: should. Reality doesn't quite keep up. <sigh>
>If you only have one supplier of a product you might
>want to rethink your long term goals.
Absolutely. Never put all your eggs in one basket.
>In many cases the distributor will accept a product with the expectation
>of defects to get better pricing and he himself,not the manufacturer,
>stands behind the product.
Yeah, various people won't even notice a lack of quality so the Dist
they can pawn those defects out to the deaf and numb.
--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.
On 3/6/2012 6:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> Gramp's shop<[email protected]> wrote in news:FZd5r.26576$2q1.16882
>> @newsfe06.iad:
>>
>>> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel
>>> base be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds?
>>
>> 1320, assuming:
>> a) the weight is evenly distributed across all four wheels
>> b) the frame is capable of bearing that load
>> c) you really want to load the casters to their rated limit
>>
>> If the weight is not evenly distributed -- which is likely to be the
>> case with a lathe, since the headstock, motor, drive assembly, etc.
>> are all at one end -- then less, in proportion to the distribution.
>>
>> Suppose, for instance, that 60% of the weight is at one end, and 40%
>> at the other. No two
>> wheels can bear more than 660 pounds, so at the heavy end, 660 pounds
>> = 60% of the total,
>> so the maximum that can be supported is 1100 pounds, 660 on one pair
>> and 440 on the
>> other.
>>
>
> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a fudge-factor
> built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over their rated capacity,
> or 50%, or even 200%.
Unless made in China, then the fudge factor may work the other way.
On 3/6/2012 7:38 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> Mathematically correct. The casters, however, probably have a fudge-factor
>> built in. They may actually stand a 10% increase over their rated capacity,
>> or 50%, or even 200%.
>
> Correction: they are *supposed to* stand such increases over their rated capacity. If the
> casters under discussion are those available for a few bucks at Horrible Fright, I think it's
> something of an open question whether their actual load-bearing capacity even reaches that
> on the label, let alone exceeds it by some presumed but unspecified -- and unknown -- margin
> of safety.
There is ample evidence to suggest that, from drywall to baby formula,
there is no word for "safety" in Chinese, at least when it concerns
exports.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Gramp's shop wrote:
> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel base
> be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds? I need to build a mobile base with four
> braked caster wheels for my new lathe and plan to use around 500 lbs of
> sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration.
>
> TIA
>
> Larry
That is correct - if weight is distributed evenly.
--
Michael Joel
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes,
His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made,
so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God,
they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became
futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
- Romans 1:20-21 (NASB)
parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct symbols
Michael Joel wrote:
> Gramp's shop wrote:
>
>> If a caster with wheel is rated at 330 pounds, would a four-wheel base
>> be rated at 330 or 1320 pounds? I need to build a mobile base with
>> four braked caster wheels for my new lathe and plan to use around 500
>> lbs of sandbags in the cabinet to eliminate vibration.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Larry
>
>
> That is correct - if weight is distributed evenly.
>
Mis-read. 1320#.
--
Michael Joel
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes,
His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made,
so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God,
they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became
futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
- Romans 1:20-21 (NASB)
parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct symbols