 | | Re: 99-03 Voting: Quick Comments —Joshua Delahunty
|
| | | (...) I wish I knew for a _fact_ that this is (was) the case, but I can't say so with any certainty. I would suppose that using an existing mold to create an axle, and then cutting threads into the element, makes a lot more sense than trying to (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 99-03 Voting: Quick Comments —Terry Keller
|
| | | | (...) That is the same question I had about the construction. :-) And I liked Joshua's logic about the number. It groups them numerically very nicely, and saves using 3-digit #'s, so why not? (...) I would think so - without actually seeing the (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 99-03 Voting: Quick Comments —Chris Moseley
|
| | | | (...) Coz they didn't? The nut is a unique part, as far as I can tell. It is round, and ribbed on the outside (ribs parallel to the axle), and I've never seen a part that could be machined down to make it. (well, not easily, you could probably (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 99-03 Voting: Quick Comments —Terry Keller
|
| | | | (...) Just spouting off a theory without any actual knowledge. :-) I was just theorizing that it would probably be simpler and more accurate to mold the basic nut shape, and then run a threaded tap through it to create threads. At least it seems to (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
