Yes, your assumption is correct. The offending word was the opposite of blow (which would have conveyed the same message).
Tee-hee!
Do you think this should be brought up on the changes and issues forum? Or just continue to be amused?
I haven't seen the new (remote) glass scales. Do they not have a sensor that slides on them? The scales I have are stainless and have a sliding doohicky that looks like the unit on digital calipers.
That's what the Shars scales look like. I got a response from Discount Machine (eBay seller), and just ordered a replacement 12" unit for ~$65, including shipping. Shars price is ~$63 before shipping.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330386076372&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT
DavidH (member of this forum) sells iGaging scales, which have remote readouts. His prices are a lot better than I've seen anywhere else. I recently bought set of "Absolute" scales for another tool, and they're "
absolutely" great!! The Absolutes have stainless steel bars, with a read head on them, plus a remote display/control module. He also sells iGaging brand scales, which have aluminum scale bars.
My research uncovered an interesting issue. I checked my digital x scale against the vernier on the longitudinal crank. .010 on the crank vernier registered .009 on my digital. The discrepancy was not linear, varying randomly at each 10-thousandth up to .050, which registered .047 on the digital. I can't think of a plan to figure which one is off.
Could be either:
* These digital scales are rated as something like +/- .001 because of their resolution, plus +/-.00X, which varies with distance. The aluminum scales have wider tolerance than the stainless, probably because aluminum expands/contracts more with temperature changes.
* On the other hand, there might be inaccuracies or wear in your leadscrew. I don't know what kind of machine you have (and don't want to insult them), but
some Asian imports use metric leadscrews, with "approximately correct" verniers.
I once fixtured a new iGaging scale on the bed of my mini-mill and spindle. I compared the (LMS) DRO readings with those on the iGaging, every inch or so over about 10". Don't recall the exact numbers, but they seemed to disagree as much as +/- .002", with apparently random variations. The average error was around +/-.001".
As I don't do machining for a living, I'm not overly concerned with errors of that magnitude. Everything I've machined to date has worked out well. And I'm sure I'd end up making all kinds of mistakes if I had to go back to counting crank turns ;~)
