So PartWorks is an Aspire Light, hmm? Did Vectric write the software for ShopBot, or did ShopBot build to Vectric?
Here's a DIY 5-axis machine, supposedly with zero backlash. Plans are $149, send email for B/C drive price. (Uh, oh!)
-- "Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the latent spark. If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?" --John Adams
"Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the latent spark. If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?" --John Adams
Nope. Partworks is the same as Vectric VCarvePro. Partworks 3D is the same as Aspire, I think they have the same features, although I don't know if that includes the new features of Aspire 3. Vectric's engineers came from ArtsCAM and I don't know at which point Partsworks was developed. I also don't know if the Partsworks will export toolpaths to hundreds of different CNC controllers.
-- "Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the latent spark. If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?" --John Adams
Nowhere do I suggest to stop pursuit of alternate energy sources. I have suggested we hang onto resources we can't replace, and using NG as a stop-gap fuel is wasteful and not smart. Build small nukes with better safety devices and better location selection.
-- "Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the latent spark. If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?" --John Adams
Point is, we *will* run out at the current rate of extraction. It is also irresponsible to let our children's children be saddled with the aftermath of our reckless behaviour. Add to that that the processes to extract the last bit of NG is going to be more and more destructive the closer to the last gasp we get. The fracking, fricking, cracking, digging and boiling of rock at insane depths is going to push the cost of NG to the point where the economic toll of that bad addiction is going to cause some bad behaviour by those who feel they have the exclusive right to such resources.
The quest for energy has made us do some pretty sad things, take some bad chances. From the guy with the harpoon in his quest to capture metric tons of whale oil to the scientist who burns his vital organs because the forgot to close the lead lid on those powerful radio active sources, they have learned that specific sources of energy are either finite (whales) or difficult to handle (nukes). There was a time when they thought the oceans would never run out of whales, just like some think we'll never run out of oil or gas. The "as long as there's enough while I'm alive" argument is selfish and disgusting.
Here's an idea: Seriously increase the price of gas today and set up a fund to use for fusion research. Take control of the oil and gas industries because that shit in the ground belongs to all of us, not just a few manipulative greedy bastards that are behaving badly.
By any estimate, alternate renewable energies will have been developed and deployed as more cost effective than N/G long before supplies are exhausted.
--------------------------------------
also irresponsible to let our children's children be saddled with the aftermath of our reckless behavior.
------------------------------------- So much for coal and oil.
-----------------------------------
to be more and more destructive the closer to the last gasp we get. The fracking, fricking, cracking, digging and boiling of rock at insane depths is going to push the cost of NG to the point where the economic toll of that bad addiction is going to cause some bad behaviour by those who feel they have the exclusive right to such resources.
-------------------------------------- A good case for dropping oil exploration if you ask me.
------------------------------------
bad chances. From the guy with the harpoon in his quest to capture metric tons of whale oil to the scientist who burns his vital organs because the forgot to close the lead lid on those powerful radio active sources, they have learned that specific sources of energy are either finite (whales) or difficult to handle (nukes). There was a time when they thought the oceans would never run out of whales, just like some think we'll never run out of oil or gas. The "as long as there's enough while I'm alive" argument is selfish and disgusting.
------------------------------------- Yep.
----------------------------------------
fund to use for fusion research. Take control of the oil and gas industries because that shit in the ground belongs to all of us, not just a few manipulative greedy bastards that are behaving badly.
------------------------------------ How about "Cap & Trade"?
As others have said before, our survival as a planet depends on finding and developing renewable energy forms at affordable prices while eliminating fossil fuel sources from our energy sources.
Current weather conditions are simply indicative of things to come if we don't start getting CO2 out of our atmosphere.
I would love to see nuclear be part of that energy mix; however, no commercial insurance carrier will write liability coverage for a nuke and the blatant bull shit being spewed by the industry lobby does nothing to make me believe the industry is ready for prime time.
The nuke industry is looking at initial cost to make a sale, trying to ignore total cost of ownership over the life cycle of a facility.
Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and all the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both start and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than _all_ the airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the NEC show an operating profit. The premium higher-speed service ("Acela") is profitable enough that it covers all of the associated 'overhead' costs, as welL, and then some.
Maglev is simply _not_ economical. Without regard to the horrendous initial outlay, The operating cost is extremely high. It takes *lots* of watts to run a maglev, even at medium speeds. At high speeds, its even worse. Maglev _is_ capable of higher speeds than is practical with wheels-on-rails, but that is, essentially, it's -only- advantage.
snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote in news:t7CdnWx2h8fFE5jTnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@posted.nuvoxcommunications:
Another fact is the rather deplorable condition of the tracks, overhead wires, signals and powerstations, as well as the traffic control on the heavily overused NEC tracks. A reason I used to be glad of having the option to commute into NY via Hoboken, definitely one of the reasons I am happy to be retired ...
Amtrak didn't pay for that track though, they got it more or less for free--the deal was that Conrail gave Amtrak the track and Conrail didn't have to pay trackage on it for 10 years.
Would Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor still be profitable if they were paying interest on purchase of the rights of way and construction of the track? At 1976 Northeast Corridor land prices?
As for carrying more passengers than the airlines, you can't take the plane from Windsor to Windsor Locks. According to Amtrak 250,000 riders a day ride 4.9 million passenger miles in the Northeast Corridor. That makes the average trip 19.6 miles. Airlines don't serve 20 mile routes. Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor isn't competing with the airlines, they're competing with buses and taxicabs and bicycles and cars.
Sorry, but Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor is not any kind of evidence that any kind of rail can compete with airlines.
It takes "lots of watts" to run any kind of high speed electric train. In point of fact the Transrapid draws about 5 megawatts, 500 kw or so of which is for levitation. The TGV at full power draws about 9 megawatts to achieve similar performance (configured for record runs with two engines, the TGV draws more like 18). Apparently the energy cost to levitate is more than outweighed by the elimination of rolling friction.
While I agree that maglev is a nonstarter (and so do the Germans and the British and the Chinese--the only folks who look likely to put one in service on more than a trial basis are the Japanese) it's not because of the power consumption.
The fastest demonstrated maglev went 3 mph faster than than the TGV. And the TGV did it on track that is in daily service, not a special closed test track.
On the other hand, a Maglev does't beat the track to death at that speed, or so the advocates claim.
"J. Clarke" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local:
I don't believe that the airlines collectively (and hence the people who fly, public and private) pay for all the costs of airports and air traffic control. So that argument is moot (my opinion).
Amtrak acquired this by act of Congress, IIRC. No interest payments necessary.
Not totally correct. I live near NYC in Jersey, worked in NYC (now retired). If I had to travel for work to Boston, Washington DC or in between, I would take the train (Acela preferred). We also did for a while when traveling privately to visit family near Boston,but the train switching and delays got to me, and now we're traveling faster and more cheaply by car (faster being the more important factor).
The huge successes of cheap bus travel also demonstrate a need for travelling other than by plane on routes that take around 4-6 hours by car. Why skulk around airports for 3 hours total if the flight is less than 1 to 1 1/2 hour?
See above - not true under admittedly limited conditions
TGV and similar trains are a very good way to travel in my experiences in Europe, but not especially cheap. With my broken leg the trip Rotterdam to Paris was just fine, on a par with first class on AirFrance/Delta Paris to EWR (except the food was MUCH better ).
For longer distances (>500 miles) RyanAir and similar are very effective. Again, IMNSHO.
Wanna guess on the value of that "10 years of trackage rights" that Conrail didn't pay? Including all the deferred maintenance (that Conrail hadn't done) needed to bring the tracks back 'up to spec' -- even for freight use. Don't forget the taxes they didn't have to pay. Conrail got rid of a sh*tload of liabilities by dumping that track on Amtrak.
Hint: _BY_LAW_, Conrail could not dispose of an asset for _less_ than 'fair market value'. Hint: _BY_LAW_, Amtrak could could not buy things at a price materially _above_ 'fair market value'.
The 'price paid' in transaction _was_ "fair market value" -- under the accepted definition of "where a _willing_ seller finds a _willing_ buyer".
"male bovine excrement" applies.
Fact: The _entire_ Amtrak system carries less than 80,000 passengers/day (28+ million riders a _year). Your claim"250,000 riders a day" is over THREE TIMES the entire Amtrak ridership.
"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" would seem to apply.
That 250,000/day number includes all the 'commuter rail' services (_not_ part of Amtrak) that use the NEC tracks (for a fee). That commuter rail service makes up well over 210,000 of that 250,000 trips. Needless to say, these commuter rail trips *are* relatively short -- *especially* if you only count the _part_ of the trip that *is* on Amtrak NEC rails.
ACTUAL "AMTRAK TRAINS" DATA:
Amtrak NEC trains carried over 11 million (an average of about thirty thousand riders a day, less than _1/8_ of what you claim) passengers in 2010, with an average trip length of over _160_miles_. That _is_ in the range that airlines serve in the NEC.
_ALL_ the top-volume city-pairs for NEC trains have directly competing air service. ('Route 128' and 'Back Bay' are both in the Boston Metro area, serviced by Logan International)
'Acela' service, alone, carried over 3.1 million passengers in 2010, with an _average_ trip length of *189 miles*. (over 85% of these trips were more than 100 miles, and over 57% were more than 200 miles.)
The top city pairs were: NYC -- Wash. D.C. 225 miles Boston -- NYC 231 miles NYC -- Philadelphia 91 miles Philadelphia -- D.C. 134 miles NYC -- Rte 128 (boston) 220 miles NYC -- Providence, RI 188 miles NYC -- Back Bay (boston) 230 miles NYC -- Wilmington DE 117 miles Newark -- Wash. D.C. 215 miles
Northeast corridor non-Acela service carried 7.8 million passengers in 2010 with an average trip distance of *154 miles*. (almost 2/3 of these trips were over 100 miles, and more than 1/3 were over 200 miles).
Combined, that's an total of just over 11 million riders a year, with an average trip length of *164 miles*.
In 2010, over 7.5 million Amtrak NEC trips were over 100 miles, with over 3 million of them over 200 miles. This _is_ in the range for air flights in NEC territory.
Your statistics were bogus, and your conclusion is similarly flawed. The fact remains that Amtrak _does_ carry a majority of the local traffic in the NEC, and between major city pairs there, cities where there is 'parallel' air service.
Further, if you look in Europe, you can find multiple major city pairs where TGV type trains have taken _so_much_ of the traffic away from the airlines that the airlines have _discontinued_service_ on those routes. _NO_ airline flies between those cities any more. Rail is the now the _only_ alternative to driving on those routes.
Quality, -frequent-, passenger rail service, can and *does* compete very successfully with air service. Virtually everybody in the transportation industry recognizes that this _is_ a *fact*.
The 'big problem' in _most_ of the U.S. -- basically anywhere except the East and West coasts -- is that the population density is not high enough to support 'frequent' service of any type.
So you're saying that it cost Amtrak just as much to not pay anything as it would have for them to have bought the rights of way and laid the track from scratch?
Except that Conrail did not sell the track and Amtrak did not buy it.
It was not "disposal of an asset" it was a government mandated transfer.
So you're saying that "Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the busiest railroad in North America, with more than 2,200 trains operating over some portion of the Washington-Boston route each day. More than a quarter of a million riders use the NEC on every weekday, generating more than 4.9 million daily passenger miles " is a lie? If so take it up with Amtrak, it's cut and pasted directly from their web site.
So let's see, how many people drive cars between those city pairs?
So what? The US is not Europe.
It does? So how is it that the TGV needs government subsidies?
So why build fancy high speed trains all over the US?
No, I am saying *YOU*LIED*, whether intentionally or not, in your 'interpretation' of those numbers. Either you didn't read carefully, or didn't care about accuracy, or _deliberately_ distorted what you read.
To be precise, when you claimed the 'average Amtrak trip' was a mere
19+ miles, you were GROSSLY in error.
In reality, _Amtrak_ carries about 30,000 passengers a day in the NEC, with an average trip distance of over 164 miles.
Note: "250,000 riders a day" is OVER THREE TIMES the _entire_ national rider ship on Amtrak.
Yes, there _are_ 250,000 riders/day on the NEC. Nearly 90% of them are on various short-distance "commuter rail" systems many of which run on Amtrak rail for only a _small_ portion of their travel. Consider the LIRR, which uses Amtrak rails _only_ in the immediate vicinity of NYC Penn station.
A partial list of the commuter rail agencies, operating over 20 different routes, that contribute that 88% of the 'over 250,000 riders/day': New Jersey Transit (7 lines, connecting to NYC) MARC (1 line, connecting to Wash D.C.) MTBA (4 lines, connecting to Boston) Metro-North (3 lines, Connecticut) SEPTA (5 lines, connecting to Philadelphia) Shore Line East (1 line, Connecticut)
You either "don't know" the actual facts, "don't care" about the accuracy of what you claim, or deliberately falsify numbers to attempt to support your fallacious claims.
Far less than those who fly or take the train -- for all the above-listed city pairs, with possible exceptions of NYC-Wilmington, and NYC-Philly.
BFD. You wanted 'evidence' that rail can compete with air. There is _LOTS_ of such evidence in Europe.
_SOME_ TVG routes do. A number do not. Routes that have killed the competing airline service did it without any subsidies.
Why do _automobiles_ *everywhere* need government subsidies?
Why do _airplanes *everywhere* need government subsidies?
Why has passenger airline service, over the entire _lifetime_ of such service not made a profit? Government bail-outs, subsidies, and gov't 'assumption of liabilities, plus bankruptcy write-offs, _matches_ the total lifetime profits for the entire U.S. passenger industry. EVERY penny of profits ever paid out to passenger airline shareholders has come out of the government's pockets, in one way or another.
Nice strawman attempt.
FACT: *nobody* rational is proposing 'high speed' trains "all over the US". In fact, I've never heard *anybody*, "rational. or otherwise, propose a high speed train from Albuquerque to Salt lake, for example. Or, from Spokane to Fargo.
FACT: 'higher speed' rail _is_ being proposed for _A_FEW__SELECTED_ markets where there _is_ potential traffic levels to make it feasible.
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.