# Molding machine form Russia



## Dominik Pierog (8 Jan 2017)

V V V This is link V V V


----------



## deema (8 Jan 2017)

Very clever creation..,,,but I wouldn't want to operate it!


----------



## Hot stuff (8 Jan 2017)

Took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## bilburt (15 Jan 2017)

Yeah that looks slight sketchy but great results


----------



## Walney Col (15 Jan 2017)

I have absolutley zero time for people who's bggest concern in whether a machine's been silly person-proofed to the point where it's safe for a toddler to play with. 
Just because you _*can*_ stick your fingers in there doesn't mean you _*have to*_!

Col.


----------



## timber (16 Jan 2017)

Walney Col":2scxo42f said:


> I have absolutley zero time for people who's bggest concern in whether a machine's been silly person-proofed to the point where it's safe for a toddler to play with.
> Just because you _*can*_ stick your fingers in there doesn't mean you _*have to*_!
> 
> Col.


I agree Col.
I have a Legacy Ornamental Woodturning Lathe and is much better than that contraption. However all wood working machines are capable of biting . That is why we have brains that help us to avoid accidents
Timber


----------



## ColeyS1 (16 Jan 2017)

timber":twoikm5s said:


> Walney Col":twoikm5s said:
> 
> 
> > I have absolutley zero time for people who's bggest concern in whether a machine's been silly person-proofed to the point where it's safe for a toddler to play with.
> ...


So if you had to make your own machine, would you design it to be relatively safe (perhaps costing a little more) or just capable of getting the job done with no guarding whatsoever- just curious.

Coley 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## timber (17 Jan 2017)

ColeyS1":3cffjbeb said:


> timber":3cffjbeb said:
> 
> 
> > Walney Col":3cffjbeb said:
> ...


It is not for me to say how much guarding is needed. however it need to be well constructed so that it does not break under strain. That can happen when one gets complacent, although some of the machine guards are worse than useless.
I have a Dewalt radial arm saw , it did have too many guards on it ( In my opinion ) I do like to see the blade that will try to get me if it can!!!
By the way i bought my Legacy Mill from up your way ,Deaf Hill
Regards
Timber


----------



## xiphidius (22 Jan 2017)

Sign of the times in this Cotton Wool Society...Britian was not made great by worrying wither things were safe to a point that you might as well step back and let the robot do it.....Innovators Innovated without a care in the world...a Spitfire was some pieces of wood with a skin thrown over it strapped to a mass engine..stuck a human in there for good measure...Point is the above machine produces decent work ok its pretty crude but it gets the job done....was a Spitfire ever safe....


----------



## davin (23 Jan 2017)

Some interesting links there, dzienkuje bardzo 

I thought this one was very clever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKpSWOs6hM4

this led to this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI7dCpgDAXI

which led to .......

and before I knew it I had wasted two hours...


----------



## davin (23 Jan 2017)

I'm hooked.
If you want to see some hefty spindle moulding without H and S watch this one at about 10 minutes in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO6AN2ZaEfk


----------



## AES (27 Jan 2017)

xiphidius wrote, QUOTE: ... a Spitfire was some pieces of wood with a skin thrown over it ....... UNQUOTE:

You'll look for a VERY long time to find any wood at all, anywhere in the structure of a Spitfire Sir!!!!!!!

QUOTE: ....was a Spitfire ever safe.... UNQUOTE:

By any standard you care to apply, YES.

I do take your point about "over safety-ising" things (and tend to agree), but with respect Sir, that example was just about the silliest example you could ever come up with.

AES


----------



## Walney Col (27 Jan 2017)

AES":2yua35ij said:


> ....was a Spitfire ever safe....
> 
> By any standard you care to apply, YES.
> AES


There's two side to everything. They weren't AT ALL SAFE. from the german perspective.


----------



## Walney Col (27 Jan 2017)

ColeyS1":teykmvb8 said:


> So if you had to make your own machine, would you design it to be relatively safe (perhaps costing a little more) or just capable of getting the job done with no guarding whatsoever- just curious.


I do make my own machines. 





As to whether they're safe or not, that would depend on who was using it.

Safe for me? Absolutley. 
Safe for someone with zero machining experience? Hell no. #-o 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezz7pvrlI3k

Col.


----------



## AES (28 Jan 2017)

I've seen some of the post and videos on the machines you make Walney Col, and they're excellent - very inventive and I'm sure they're safe in your hands.

But also, you wrote, QUOTE: They weren't AT ALL SAFE. from the german perspective. UNQUOTE:

I understand what you mean, and it's very "clever", but if the German was behind the Spitfire, then even that's not true either.

If you read your history, that happened all too often, especially at the time of Dunkirk and the early part of what became the Battle of Britain. All too often Spitfire (and Hurricane) pilots didn't even see the German that shot them down - a combination of not enough operational training coupled with poor and out-dated tactics from the higher echelons - in other words, lack of "operator" skill and training. (Fortunately for us all, that changed pretty swiftly, despite the "palace politics" indulged in by Leigh-Mallory v Park - again, read the histories).

And there was NO wood at all anywhere within the structure of a Spitfire - both of which points led me to saying that the example was a very silly one. So I stick by my point.

But this is thread drift and I apologise - I do agree with the point about "over-safety-ising" stuff, as already said.

AES


----------

