Small projects for my apprentice

[Crazyraceguy]

After watching one too many caulking tubes fall from his clamp rack, I decided to fix it. I designed an overly complex solution.
I have been told that everything I have done lately looks like brass knuckles.....only if you have too many fingers.
While I was doing this, he asked me if I could make him something better for his router bits. His brand preference is Milwaukee, so it had to fit in the drawer of a Packout.
This was all done "on the spot" strictly on-tool, no computer. Oh, except for the logo, I downloaded that months ago.

 

[squall_line]

Force-multiplying tool, for sure.

Hard for me to justify as a hobbyist who hasn't made any sawdust in almost 3 years, but also proof-positive that it has a use case when talking to people who just don't get it.

Nice work!

 

[Crazyraceguy]

I absolutely love this thing. I bought it not really knowing how to use it, planning to learn. They have since updated/improved the user-experience tremendously. It turns into a "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail" situation. The better I get with it, the more things I see. I still don't use it for everything though. Often times it works out better to make a jig and use another router for the actual cutting.

Last Friday, I made a jig to cut keyhole slots. That way anyone could do it with their own router.
Normally, I just use an edge-guide, but this last one did not have a straight edge on top.

 

[Packard]

Apprenticeship was originally designed to impart the required skills, but also to cull out those that didn’t have the mind-set to do the work. 

The head of our tool and die shop apprenticed in Spain as a teen.  He described to me the first week on the job.

He was given a block of steel approximately 2” - 3” square.  (The size is my estimate based on the hand gestures made while telling the story.)

He was told that he was to use only a metal working file and standard measuring tools (which apparently included squares), that he was to make a perfect cube with all 90 degree angles and flat and smooth sides.

It took a couple of days to do that.

Then he was told to take a piece of sheet metal and make a perfect arc to serve as a template while he filed that perfect cube into a perfect sphere.

It took a couple of days to do that. 

Then he was told to take that perfect sphere and turn it back into a perfect cube.

Apparently, that was the point when half the apprentices quit.  They did not have the self-discipline to do fine work. 

So, I was less impressed with your apprentices’ workmanship (which appears to be excellent) than I was by his ability to visualize the organizational insert, lay it out and execute the design. 

I think he has the mental aptitude—no further culling out required. 

Tell him for me, “Nice job.”

 

[Michael Kellough]

“I absolutely love this thing.”  In case anyone is wondering, “this thing” is the Shaper Origin.

 

[Michael Kellough]

[member=74278]Packard[/member] , it’s the reverse, CRG made this for his apprentice.

The interesting thing that caused CRG to post is that all the design, layout, and execution was performed on the little screen on the Shaper Origin itself. Now computer/cad required. That is a game changer.

 

[Packard]

Even into the 1970s, cars were designed on paper.  The engineers could visualize the main components of a design, but not all the tiny bits that would have to be corrected at a later date.

A few errors that had to be corrected:

A Jeep Wagoneer.  To move the temperature control for the heater/AC from its coldest setting, you had to open the driver’s door to access the lever.

Camaro Z-28, the sun visor was flat and needed to be curved to fold out of the way.

A Ford Taurus, the side mirror control would catch on the drivers’ jacket sleeve and re-adjust.  A short drive consisted mainly of re-adjusting the side view mirror.

The computer screen and 3D modeling virtually eliminated those design errors.  So, I consider the computer screen a blessing. 

I was told as a child that I had “excellent spatial relation” capability.  I can design an entire project in my head, and go through the steps required to assemble it.  I am able to foresee assembly issues and avoid them. This is not something I developed.  It was put there by nature. 

But most people benefit greatly from the 3d renderings that you can now see on computer screens. 

The younger generation is going to be a lot better at that than earlier generations.  They have been playing on computer screens since they were small children. 

I am encouraged that cars in the last 25 years do not have the same kinds of errors that the older cars had.  Progress.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

[member=74278]Packard[/member] The machine shop program I went through in the early 80s did a somewhat similar thing. All of the projects that we made were all tools that we would use later. Most of them could have been purchased very easily, but that was not the point. We made our own 1-2-3 blocks (heat treating, surface grinding and all) drill-point gauge, edge finder, wiggler, etc.
Sadly, it was all stolen a few years later, by a friend of my little brother, Kennedy toolbox and all.

I guess I should have been clearer. The 5-hole outer pattern was done the night before at home, the center holes were a last-minute detail that occurred later. I did those with the on-tool capability of Origin.
All of the bit insert piece was done there on the spot. It was not planned in any way, we designed it together.

You absolutely could do a simple version of the caulking tube thing from the on-tool CAD, but it would have to be a simple radius on the outside. The shape and the holes are easy, but there would be no way to combine those shapes, to make the outer bumps.
The funny thing is that irregular shape below the Milwaukee logo. As crazy as it sounds, it is easier to do that on-tool, than it would be with Shaper's Studio program. There is a point-to-point drawing tool that is not yet a part of the more sophisticated software. Someday maybe