Free 186 More Best Homemade Tools eBook:  
Get tool plans

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Radius gauge and reverse engineering

  1. #11
    GKK
    GKK is offline
    GKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    65
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Thanks. A tool I do not have, but sure could use.

    186 More Best Homemade Tools eBook

  2. #12
    Supporting Member scrdmgl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    26
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 44 Times in 15 Posts

    scrdmgl's Tools
    Hi Tony:
    Could you please describe the principle behind this radius gauge? I have uses for it but I need to understand its application.

    Thanks

    Jorge

    2,000+ Tool Plans

  3. #13
    Supporting Member tonyfoale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,607
    Thanks
    721
    Thanked 2,706 Times in 726 Posts

    tonyfoale's Tools
    Quote Originally Posted by scrdmgl View Post
    Hi Tony:
    Could you please describe the principle behind this radius gauge? I have uses for it but I need to understand its application.
    Jorge
    Did you read the PDF file? I think that it is explained well in that. If that doesn't answer your needs then please ask a specific question and I'll try to help.

  4. #14
    Supporting Member Toolmaker51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    5,334
    Thanks
    7,044
    Thanked 3,011 Times in 1,900 Posts

    Toolmaker51's Tools
    Quote Originally Posted by scrdmgl View Post
    Hi Tony:
    Could you please describe the principle behind this radius gauge? I have uses for it but I need to understand its application.

    Thanks

    Jorge
    Not to intercept Tony, with such a well developed tool and programming:
    The dial indicator reads contact, plus or minus of plane established by the outboard 'feet'. Knowing distance between outboard feet [chord], and midpoint distance found by indicator [arc] boils down to representative geometry, or calculative trigonometry. It's all around us...roadways, bridges, ballistics, architecture, navigation, astronomy, surveying, even ocean towing by chain/ wire rope.
    And recreating castings from machined billets.
    Last edited by Toolmaker51; Dec 29, 2018 at 05:02 PM.
    Sincerely,
    Toolmaker51
    ...we'll learn more by wandering than searching...

  5. #15
    Phantom89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Awesome👍👍 such a simple idea but very useful. And the cherry on top is the wooden case. Nice touch.

  6. #16
    Mr.Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    19
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
    Thanks for this nice tool. I have to make one, its soo cool !

  7. #17
    prm
    prm is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Alternative formula

    Quote Originally Posted by tonyfoale View Post
    I have just enhanced the software to allow calculation of the curve radius and centre coordinates when the XY coordinates of three points on a curve are known.
    This is useful if you use the DRO on a milling machine to determine the coordinates of three points. This does not need the radius gauge described above.
    The link to the software is the same as that in the PDF RadiusGauge.pdf
    Tony,

    I always read your articles with interest. As I had not used my brain over Christmas, I decided to work out the formula for the radius before reading the appendix.
    I ended up with a different and, perhaps, a simpler formula: R=(s^2 + h^2) / 2*h
    (where s is half the distance between the probes, h is the value on the indicator and, ^2 means 'squared')

    I hope you won't mind if I also note that there are some typos in the pdf file : in the sections were you discuss errors in the indicator reading and errors in measuring the probe spacing, the radius value are not correct.

    Regards,
    Paul

  8. #18
    Supporting Member tonyfoale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,607
    Thanks
    721
    Thanked 2,706 Times in 726 Posts

    tonyfoale's Tools
    Quote Originally Posted by prm View Post
    Tony,

    I always read your articles with interest. As I had not used my brain over Christmas, I decided to work out the formula for the radius before reading the appendix.
    I ended up with a different and, perhaps, a simpler formula: R=(s^2 + h^2) / 2*h
    (where s is half the distance between the probes, h is the value on the indicator and, ^2 means 'squared')
    Paul,

    I always like to find an easier way regards of where it comes from but I just don't follow your formula. Please show the full derivation. I assume that brackets could enclose the 2*h as (2*h) for clarity and that it is not ((s^2 + h^2) / 2)*h, to remove any ambiguity. In any case I am just not getting it, sometimes we get tunnel vision.

    Quote Originally Posted by prm View Post
    I hope you won't mind if I also note that there are some typos in the pdf file : in the sections were you discuss errors in the indicator reading and errors in measuring the probe spacing, the radius value are not correct.
    I never mind it when errors are pointed out. Thanks, I'll check it out later, I am on the wrong computer at the moment.

  9. #19
    prm
    prm is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Alternative ormula

    Quote Originally Posted by tonyfoale View Post
    Paul,

    I always like to find an easier way regards of where it comes from but I just don't follow your formula. Please show the full derivation. I assume that brackets could enclose the 2*h as (2*h) for clarity and that it is not ((s^2 + h^2) / 2)*h, to remove any ambiguity. In any case I am just not getting it, sometimes we get tunnel vision.
    Tony,

    I have produced a document with the derivation. It is very convenient that the r^2 terms cancels out and leaves a remarkably simple formula.

    Cheers,
    Paul
    Attached Files Attached Files

  10. #20
    Supporting Member tonyfoale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,607
    Thanks
    721
    Thanked 2,706 Times in 726 Posts

    tonyfoale's Tools
    Quote Originally Posted by prm View Post
    Tony,

    I have produced a document with the derivation. It is very convenient that the r^2 terms cancels out and leaves a remarkably simple formula.

    Cheers,
    Paul
    That's much better. At first I did think about going the (r-h) route but I thought that it would end up being more complex so I did it the way that I did.
    I'll amend my pdf to show your derivation.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •