This is very true, I was not attempting to suggest you _could_ even use a conventional chuck, for just the reasons you cite.
However if you could and were to increase the effective mass of the bit by a factor of (at least) five, you will also increase energy losses at the point of transfer. You are going to get those losses at some point in the system, so better they are at the drill to wall interface.
DIY wise, you used a Rawltool and a heavy hammer
In practice, it does.
I'm not arguing that point as you're right. Just trying to correct IMM's usual inaccurate account of history.
Ok, prat. Give chapter and verse on the formation of BMC. As if...
Richard, who cares it was crap and rightly disappeared.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
Doctor Evil knows more about history than anyone else.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
Wonder who Richard is, John?
But you brought up BMC. Merely trying to put the record straight for anyone who is interested. Which tends to have to happen with most of your posts. Strange, really, considering they are just regurgitations of websites. Perhaps you need to read them more carefully.
Thought you might have turned over a new leaf with your new identity? Otherwise, why bother?
Hint. To think you know more about *anything* than anyone else makes you some sort of fanatic. So nothing has changed.
Mr Cranium, you must stop this.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
No. I have fanatics following me, called fans for short.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required