New video: Sliding Table Alignment

I'll have you know that those knuckles have been certified tracable to NIST standards! ;-)There is no "trial" of the fence setting in the video. Just measurement during an adjustment process. The "trial" comes when you make the test cut with the machine. The error is reflected in the accuracy of that test cut. There is no error if there is no inaccurate test cut.

Lots of trial and lots of error Tim. Let's see here, the first five test cuts all have error. Then you make a measured adjustment and five more test cuts with error. This "calibrates" your adjustment process. So, then you make your final adjustment and another set of five test cuts (not "One more test cut") and only after all 15 test cuts is "Bob yer uncle". I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm not saying it's inaccurate. I'm not telling anybody to avoid it. I'm just saying that I don't like it. It's not something that I find productive.

That's very good.

I'm sure that with a little math you could figure out the exact spot to put the indicator. This provides you with a predictable mechanism to use for monitoring the adjustment of your fence. But, you would do one better to have a mechanism to monitor the actual setting of the fence (it's actual angle). That's what you get when you use the square with the dial indicator. Direct feedback on how close the fence is to 90 degrees.

He probably went to a very hot place for lying. There is nothing on a contractor's saw which is stable to 50 millionths. Nothing. There are people who buy these low cost digital indicators which can read to 50u" and suddenly they become a Metrologist and all around expert on machinery setup. Don't you believe it!

Not bad. You see me do it real-time in the video. No CGI; no cuts, no time lapse video, and no stunt double. How long do you think that is? The whole video (all three procedures) is less than 5 minutes (4:66). Squaring the fence took about 2 minutes and I was deliberately going slow so that people could follow what was happening.

Sure enough. Yep, I'm sure it would work. But, if you're already going to do 2 or three iterations of the adjust/check cycle, then the extra effort doesn't really save you much.

What I show in the video is a procedure which is easy to understand and follow for those who haven't done it before. "Step 1, step 2, step 3, repeat as necessary, etc." However, after a while you realize that you don't really want to bring the indicator back to zero. You actualy want to go a little bit past zero. And, with a little practice it can be done without much thought on the first adjustment. But wait! The real expert discovers that the change in reading on the indicator can be slowed and even halted by adjusting the fence while it is moving. I do this all the time. There's not even a real need to establish a reference (set the indicator to zero). So, for me it's just too much bother to try and quantify the amount of correction needed in the fence angle. I just do it.

No problem. I'm just saying that it's not free.

Try it with a smaller square. All woodworkers must have a square, right? Like I said, 0.001" at 6" is the same as 0.003" at 18" - or

0.004" at 24" which rivals what you described above.

Not quite.

As you can see from the video, I have the large Excalibur. It also has the rotating stop but I just don't use it. Too many things go wrong with stops. After a few years in the machine shop, you learn to check everything all the time.

Stops and lines are great for quick and rough setups. But, when I need something to be accurate, I trust my square and indicator.

Thanks, Ed Bennett snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com

Reply to
ejb
Loading thread data ...

Yes, of course. Good managers don't try to do everything alone, they assemble a team of experts and coordinate their efforts. The point being that there is nothing inherent in the discipline of Engineering which excludes it from top management. All these folks were Engineers who very successfully filled roles in "top management" whether they partnered with complimentary skills or not.

The reason you see more Marketing/Finance people in mid/upper level management in large companies is purely political. These folks tend to do a lot of presentations to executive management and receive a lot of visibility for it. It colors everything that that top management sees. Promotions naturally follow.

Finally, the real issue comes through! In my 17+ years with HP, I worked in a position which was right in the middle between the lab (engineers), marketing, finance, and manufacturing. So, I'm quite familiar with the issues between the "propeller heads" and marketing "weenies". Believe me, it goes both ways!

I am one Engineer who really appreciates the disciplines of Marketing and Finance. Out of necessity I am forced to cover these functions myself and I know they suffer as a result. Unfortunately, it's difficult (impossible?) to find people in these disciplines who are willing to "risk" some of their time and effort on their own abilities (i.e. "pay for results"). The latest challenge has been developing a Marketing Plan with which to attract the services of a Marketing Agency. It's quite a "chicken and the egg" situation.

Ed Bennett snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com

formatting link

Reply to
ejb

snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Well, Ed, here comes another opinion, unsolicited...

That marketing plan is no more a single, unchanging document than the engineering plan is that the propellerheads slave over in the lab. It develops, matures, changes and responds as tha market, competition and the surrounding environment change. It is no more a 'do it once' effort than anything else in business. Aged marketing plans are of little use.

So it always takes someone interested in the success of the business to keep the marketing current and fresh, just like the engineers keep chasing the next, important development in the product. And the finance folks try to keep profit together, pay the taxes and employees and suppliers, and hopefully, save a little to grow on.

It can be one person, but they have to care about everything, and it takes a dedicated one to make it work. And probably a few good counselors, advisors and subcontractors, too.

I've found this thread interesting. Hope I'm not alone. ;-)

Patriarch

Reply to
Patriarch

Not really. Marketing and Finance types typically have Business Degrees. That is what makes them more likely to become upper level management.

Yes it does.

Reply to
Mike Marlow

IMHO, rubbish.

Engineers tend to forget to ask the basic question, "Why are we here?"

They are to busy getting lost in the details.

I have found that Business types at least try to think along these lines.

Basic reason I got out of pure engineering and into sales/application engineering. Chased details to death.

As a sales engineer, probably got to do more creative engineering in a month than most engineers get to do in a year.

The first question you ask as a sales engineer is, "Is this project funded?"

If it is, it now becomes a fight about money between you and your competitors. That requires being creative and quickly finding the right solution.

If it isn't funded, be polite and move on and come back when it is funded.

That is a management failure to show the way to the goal, IMHO.

Nobody asked "WHY".

Had a district manager who used the following sorting system for all incoming mail. (This was long before the internet)

1) Checks. 2) New Orders 3) Change orders to existing orders 4) RFQ's

Everything else went in the circular file.

When asked if he might not be throwing something important away, he answered, "If it's that important, they'll send it again."

He made regional mgr in record time.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

That's what the newsgroup is for!

Couldn't agree more.

Absolutely. I have found such individuals but they are all me. The next best thing to do is find other people who are interested in getting paid for bringing success to the business. In general this is a very difficult task. Many want to get paid but few are interested in the success of the business.

One person can make it work on a limited basis but things are always on the edge of getting out of control. So, it becomes a monumental task of keeping lids on about six boiling pots.

A lot more interesting than I thought it would be! I hope people are enjoying the video and the discussion.

Ed Bennett snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com

formatting link

Reply to
ejb

One would like to believe this. Experience and observations are to the contrary. Business skills often (very often) interfere with upper level management activities and objectives. I have been personally informed that they are "threatening" with an official reprimand to reinforce the message. This may not be apparent to someone with a few years (or less) in the corporate environment. In a small company the effects of a bad business decision can be absulutely devastating. The same decision might go completely unnoticed in a big company. In fact, I've seen countless such blunders spun in such a way that they were praised and rewarded. Such situations are not conducive to the topic of Business School basics. Bringing them up isn't exactly a good career move.

Ed Bennett snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com

formatting link

Reply to
ejb

This really sounds like you are looking for people in the wrong places. Typical professionals are very motivated by the success of the business - often even more so than by the compensation. I would bet you might be looking at people who are more like you professionally than you are at business types. The other problem with small scale businesses is that they either don't want to or haven't properly financed themselves to be able to pay for what they want. There are real world wages to be considered and they are often out of reach of the small business. Unfortunately there is some truth to the old axiom that you get what you pay for.

Very true. And... that one person can only manage things to a certain point of growth. Not because it's overwhelming in terms of work but because they typically lack the vision, the understanding or the insight into how to get to the next level. Any one person can only truly be good at one thing. Mabye a couple, but not all.

I've been waiting for the scenes with the nekkid wimin. Which tape is that on?

Reply to
Mike Marlow

I've got over 30 years of corporate experience. Our experiences may differ in some respects but my observations and experiences bear testimony to what I've said - at least as much as yours do.

That would be what we call... politics. You are right that politics do often prevail but that's something of a peripheral point.

I've seen this sort of thing as well but that is not an indictment of what I stated earlier, which was that business degrees are what advance managers more than the politics and proximity of certain departments like Marketing and Finance. What you suggest is a personality issue and not really reflective of who gets where based on the department they work in.

Very true. The beauty of starting your own company is that you can learn from mistakes observed in others and hopefully not step into those same potholes.

Well, I never suggested that everyone with a business degree is above the human shortcomings of ego and the rest. These things do happen every day, as do a million other types of bad judgment calls. There are bad designs created every day. That does not suggest that engineers are a bad trade. They are equally defended by the author of the design, very commonly in the face of empirical evidence that the design should change. You know - the "it's my baby" syndrome or NIH. These are people issues, not issues of degrees.

The best part of having been part of corporate environments where one has observed behaviors they consider reprehensible is that one now has a mental image of the offender in their mind, and they can daily compare their own actions with that image front and center.

Reply to
Mike Marlow

Some do. Some don't. I've seen the same trend in all areas including Marketing, Finance, Sales, Manufacturing, etc. The generalization isn't necessarily valid for any single group. Having spent many years as an advocate for customer needs, I've seen just about every single discipline exhibit complete neglect for this question.

Many are. But, this is what they get paid for. You don't want Engineers who can't tolerate the tedious details. Leave the "big picture" to the project managers.

Not sure I follow. I've observed a lot of "Business types" who think only about stuffing their own pockets and promoting their own agenda. Like a parasite, they don't look far enough into the future to realize that they will kill the business they feed on. I wouldn't say this is characteristic of all "Business types" or even a majority. Such generalizations would be absurdly simplistic and completely invalid.

Some people are detail orientated. They are very comfortable and successful in situations where every detail is extremely significant. But, it inhibits them from getting their heads around large and complex systems or situations. Some people are very frustrated by details and need to see the big picture. Like you, they are much more comfortable (and successful) in environments where details are few and insignificant. Both types of people are needed in a successful business. Two clich=E9s come to mind:

"The devil is in the details" "Can't see the forest for the trees"

The challenge is to learn how to appreciate both types of people and apply their skills so that they excell at what they do. Their efforts should compliment eachother, not clash. That's what a good management team is supposed to be doing.

I've been on the receiving end of many such efforts. Trust me, the details often matter a great deal.

Perhaps there is more here than appears. It sounds a lot like the simple example you used in your first reply.

A lot of these problems are management issues. Unfortunately, a lot of what passes for management in the US corporate environment has become nothing more than politics. Organization and control of the business is often completely neglected.

Personally, I would say he was lucky. He could have easily been surprised by a number of extremely important things (like customer complaints, legal issues, cancellations, regulatory issues, company policy changes, organizational issues, etc.). I suspect that his rule wasn't quite so hard and fast as you remember it to be.

Ed Bennett snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com

formatting link

Reply to
ejb

The trouble comes when engineers get promoted to project manager without adequate attitude adjustment. At Enormous Aerospace one guy would routinely sabotage bids because "there wasn't any money in them" (a few tens of millions of dollars "wasn't any money" to him). He honestly believed that some day the Air Force was going to come in with an order for airplane propellers of the same magnitude as the ones that they got during WWII.

At the other extreme there are the ones always in search of the magic bullet that will make them the next Microsoft, and will spend vast amounts of money on that bullet that would have been better spent on boring mundane things like advertising and sales staff.

Reply to
J. Clarke

I think you hit the nail on the head - "small scale business". I don't think that my situation merits a full time professional salaried Marketing person. So, I've been trying to find an agency to help me out. For some reason, agencies are being rather selective. I started out thinking that they had to sell me on their ideas. Now I learn that I have to sell them on mine. These are the folks that want me to come to them with the Marketing Plan (complete with market research). Go figure. Somebody obviously has far too much business. This is a lot like the tax prep service which says "You need to organize all your records like this and then tabulate these categories and bring them to us on summary sheets. Then we will fill in the forms." Well, the hard part ain't the little boxes on the forms!

I've solicited for independents. Problem is that a lot of these are the dregs. The first thing I look for is an ability to represent their own services/business. If they cannot promote themselves, then they cannot possibly promote my products. So far, exactly zero have passed this first qualification. Am I expecting too much?

The ideal "perfect" candidate would be a woodworking enthusiast who can comprehend the products, their uses and need. He/she would likely be retired or have some other reason for not being interested in a full time position - just something to keep them busy and bring in some extra money. Perhaps they would even be interested in a profit sharing or limited partnership arrangement. I like this because then they have some stake in the success of their own efforts. Nothing would make me more upset than to pay for a whole bunch of "work" which results in absolutely no positive impact on sales (except maybe a negative impact on sales!).

You definitely have your finger on the pulse. I have a facility which is capable of pumping out 10 times as much as it does today. I just don't have the marketing know-how to grow sales to meet this capacity. I'm sure it will eventually get there if I keep plodding along. But, this is sub-optimal.

Sorry, this is one aspect of the videos which is bound to dissappoint many. No nekkid wimin.

Ed Bennett snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com

formatting link

Reply to
ejb

The generalization is probably invalid. I suppose that this sort of thing is dependent on the individual(s) running the organization and making the promotional decisions. I would seem to have been exposed to more than my share of those who weigh visibility very heavily and value a team of "yes men".

Not necessarily. I think it's exactly my point. I think that politics plays a far bigger role in upper management decisions (like promotions and assignments) than academic records. At lower levels I believe that people are more likely to be evaluated by educational background. A lot of Engineers are getting an MBA added to their portfolio as a result. But, my observations over the last few decades lead me to believe that choices for execuitive management positions rarely take into account the educational background. The effects (knowledge and expertise) of that background might or might not have an effect depending on the local politics (perceived as an asset or a threat).

What I'm saying is that business degrees are like personality - both dependent on local politics. I'm the sort of guy who doesn't mind working with an abrasive or offensive individual that is the best at what they do. I seek out people who demonstrate high qualifications. Someone else might prefer to disreguard talent and qualifications and decide against such a person. They often choose from among the "top of mind" individuals that they best get along with. I've seen virtually none of the former and a boatload of the latter. It does color my view of the world.

Absolutely.

Thanks, Ed Bennett snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com

formatting link

Reply to
ejb

True, but I don't think that this particular problem is exclusive to Engineers. I can think of a lot of Business oriented people who drop anything which isn't an instant success. Won't look at anything which doesn't have the obvious potential of being an instant success. Quick, snap judgments without any willingness to spend time or effort to evaluate and develop new business opportunities.

In a way, it's the same thing. The guy turning his nose up at every opportunity which isn't "perfect" will spend his fortune on the one thing that he thinks is.

Ed Bennett snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com

formatting link

Reply to
ejb

No, it is their way of finding out "Is this project funded?"

Are you for real?

What investment have you made to get your idea this far along?

From my perspective, they are just being prudent.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

You have a right to be proud of your accomplishments, but that doesn't include the right to have a chip on your shoulder.

These people who you are trying to find to help you don't know you from a hole in the wall.

They want to minimize their risk. You can't blame them.

Time for a little salesmanship.

Document your history, then ask for some help by asking a questions such as, "This is where I've been, where do WE go from here?", "How do we get to the next level?"

You would be surprised at some of the loony birds who have this latest and greatest gadget that just needs a little marketing help to make a million dollars.

Most of them don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain.

Ever wonder why there are so many late night TV commercials offering to help "inventors"?

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

That seems to be typical these days. You need to prove that you are good enough for them to take your money.

Reply to
CW

There is a great deal of annoyance, but it's not a "chip" on my shoulder. I confess, your efforts to find fault with everything "engineering" and defend/promote everything "business" has become just a bit exasperating. Perhaps I can explain in my reply here.

Everybody in business needs to to check out clients/customers or even suppliers at some time or another. It only takes a few minutes to do an Internet search to find out almost anything about a company. For example, a search on the brand "TS-Aligner" yields some 500+ references. This is perhaps the best way to get info on the cheap. If the deal is substantial enough, one could cough up $80 to get financial data from a D&B report. The report on my company would tell them that I'm not a huge outfit but I have successfully completed some rather sizeable financial responsibilities and that I always pay my bills on time.

So, instead of doing a quick web search or running a D&B report, they ask the client to do the work, and then they ask the client for money. And, when the projected sales don't materialize, I'm sure they say "Well, it was your Marketing Plan. We were only implementing your ideas." Hmmmm......I guess it's a way to get money from people without ever doing anything for it. That's just about minimizes the risk to zero.

I think their share of the blame is pretty heavy in this situation but I'd have to assign some to any bone-headed idiot who falls for such a scam.

Yes, they need to convince me that my money is well spent on their services. I'm the customer, they are supposedly trying to sell me their services. If they decide that they don't want me as a client, then they can very politely tell me so and I will be happy to go find someone else.

They can find out as much as they like without my lifting a finger. I'm not asking them to buy anything from me. I don't need to convince them of anything. If I'm looking for a partnership, and they are looking to assume some of the risk, then I'll use the word "WE". Otherwise, I expect them to act like a company trying to sell me a service. "WE" doesn't apply to anyone trying to minimize their risk to zero.

I would not be surprised at all. You forget, I've been doing this for quite some time. Over the years I've had many people approach me looking for some manufacturing capability for their ideas. I'm willing to make their widgets for a price, but many want me to make them and develop the market and sell them and then pay back a royalty. In other words, the risk is all mine. Fortunately, I'm not in that business and it saves me from most of these people you refer to.

So, in case you missed it I'll summarize. I'm annoyed because you claim to be very business savy, complain about the lack of business acumen among Engineers, and yet this extremely basic and elementry business topic seems to elude you. In fact, you defend and would probably fall prey to these parasites. Have you checked your shoulders for chips lately?

Ed Bennett snipped-for-privacy@ts-aligner.com

formatting link

Reply to
ejb

Ed, I've been kind of hit and miss in this discussion, so apologies up front if this is ground you've already covered.

There is one thing that has somewhat haunted me while I've watched the pieces of this thread that I have. I keep seeing your desire for a partnership and for a risk buy-in. Don't get me wrong... I don't believe those are inappropriate ambitions. I do wonder though, if maybe you aren't looking in the wrong places for those contributions. That's more the kind of thing I would expect out of an investor - a venture capitalist. It just seems to me that you might be mixing up a need for marketing with a need for a business partner. Those two are really different animals. Typically, if one is able to secure financing the marketing comes much easier, as the proof of a good business plan, etc. are theoretically already established.

Frankly, I'd want to keep apples in the apple basket and oranges in the vodka if I were you. I'd be looking for investment/risk partners in the VC space and then going after marketing once positioned. I'm a sales guy and the last thing I'd want is to entrust my business development to a marketing group. Their focus is just not in that place. By its very defininition, Marketing has to assume the marketability of a product (proof already established) and assumes the creative responsibility for making that happen. If it is simply the study of marketability that one is engaged in, then that's a service to be paid for and typically from a different organization. It would be hard to hope for risk sharing at that point.

Like I said - if I missed the obvious points by not staying closely coupled to this thread then feel free to discard my ramblings. Well, at least some of them. I'm sure there *must* be a nugget or two in there somewhere though...

Reply to
Mike Marlow

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.