Would whoever cut this in the spoilboard please report what happened

#1

A 4.75" dia circle was cut over 5/8" deep in the spoilboard in the past 24 hours.
Please report what happened so we can learn from it.

And you should have patched it, too!

Edit: correct derp to deep. Loved @Lordrook’s play on my typo!

3 Likes

#2

Yikes!
I’d roll video on that one

0 Likes

#3

Big Derp indeed.

7 Likes

#4

I looked at the video from noon yesterday until this afternoon, and there was one person who used the MultiCam during that time. He logged in at 5:35PM. If you need to we can do more research.

2 Likes

#5

I see the person who did it on the camera; looks like they were using their own computer rather than the one there.

can see them at 8:38 cleaning up their cut parts and should have realized they hit the spoilboard.

0 Likes

#6

@StanSimmons @hon1nbo
Thanks. Think that identifies the user in question.

0 Likes

#7

I’m spitballing here, but from a culture perspective, shouldn’t we stop calling it the spoil board and start calling it the don’t cut me at all vacuum permeable surface?

12 Likes

#8

There was a guy last night who came into the electronics lab, trying to follow some instructions on a laminated sheet regarding logging into the jump server.

0 Likes

#9

:grin: Very clever, but I’d probably be happy with the “if you cut me, fix me vacuum permeable surface”. If a person is lucky enough to never cut the spoilboard, they should spend more time buying lottery tickets … it’s just something that happens . Severity of cut is of importance, knowing why it happened and communicating that learning is important, and patching the cuts is simply something a user should always do. There’s an instructional video on the wiki (https://youtu.be/Oy_wv4T0HH0), materials are available, it’s not hard, and should never be neglected.

2 Likes

#10

We maybe need to institute an ad tabulam three strikes rule for this type of behavior.

8 Likes

#11

Funny guy … nah, ain’t gonna touch that one!

2 Likes

#12

Doing this and NOT reporting it should be a 1 strike and your out of woodshop for x amount of time. If one doesn’t own up this time, slim chance they will next time.

2 Likes

#13

I agree with Bert’s approach. There’s no reason to fire up negative comments. We use a spoilboard for a reason - because even a correctly cut piece will leave impressions in the board, and it takes very little to get too deep (and sometimes the reason is obtuse).

Instead, persons doing this should seek help to determine why it went too deep, and all Multicam users should stand ready to share info, assist, and generally support each other in the learning experience.

I’ve cut more jobs on this machine than any other member, taught it many times, fixed it many times, and even I still cut through from time to time. It does not warrant criticism or anger. Instead, it should be seen as a “teachable moment” and the user should be encouraged to find out why, and all multicam users should stand ready to learn from the experience.

The constructive approach, is to ask people to share the reason why because its important data to teach all the rest of the multicam operators, and to strictly avoid shaming people trying to learn a difficult machine.

9 Likes

#14

That’s not in conflict with this

Doing this and NOT reporting it should be a 1 strike and your out of woodshop for x amount of time. If one doesn’t own up this time, slim chance they will next time.

and in fact supports it. can’t have a teachable moment if you don’t have someone to teach, and can’t learn from a mistake if you don’t know what happened.

4 Likes

#15

You make a valid point, however I’m personally not in favor of adding more fuel to the current trend of arbitrarily and capriciously interpreting rules, often to suit the political desires of the enforcer.

I think we need to stop looking for so many reasons to hammer members. But that’s my opinion.

8 Likes

#16

If you are referring to my comment, it was more tongue-in-cheek…an oblique reference to the recent ad hominem three strikes rule recently voted on at BoD meeting.

@halachal is right though, the overall group can only learn from mistakes if when a mistake is made the mistake maker (“hey, I *made something!”) steps up and provides details involved

0 Likes

#17

Contact made with user.

9 Likes

#18

Was it a failure to set the table height issue, a bit slipping in the collet issue or ???

0 Likes

#19

Don’t know yet. Will post when I do.

3 Likes

#20

Met with the user who cut the circle in the spoilboard. New user on a learning curve. Got confused about max depth and thought it was associated with the work material, not the bit length. Had changed from a v-bit to a spiral, did change the surface Z, but misunderstood the Max Depth concept. Other circumstances in the project being cut contributing to the error being negated for the balance of the toolpath. Damage was not looked for and went unseen. The downcut bit used tended to pack chips into the groove and made the damage less obvious than it was after I vacuumed the chips and sawdust out of the cut.

User now understands what Z Max Depth means and that is must be reset after any bit change. In addition, actively inspecting the spoilboard and repairing damage was reinforced.

The items the user did not know such as spoilboard repair procedure just highlights how insufficient Talk is as a communication platform for Multicam users. Plans are in process to address this issue.

So in summary, new user mistake but part of the learning curve. I consider the issue resolved.

14 Likes