I'm wondering what the general tolerance is for hole sizes.
I received an order today in which a few 0.125 inch were used, intended for press-fit dowel pins. The dowel pins are loose instead and I found that a #30 drill (nominally 0.128") passes easily through those holes.
It would help me to know what precision to expect.
I can just use slip-fit loctite for now, but in the future should I specify any special tolerance in the order notes (or elsewhere?), or have them drilled smaller and ream precision-diameter holes myself? I have low volumes so that wouldn't really be a problem for me either.
Posted By: Ed Heitzman on Jul 26, 2010 08:47PM Category: Production
Our tolerance for holes, engravings, sizes, and thickness is +/- .1mm.
For your .125" drill hole, it would not be out of the ordinary to receive a panel with a .129" hole. If, however, you measure the hole with a caliper and find that the dimension is measurably larger than that, please contact us.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 26, 2010 08:57PMReply
Thanks for the quick reply, Paul.
For what it's worth, these holes are 1/8 inch diameter, not 1/4. They are within that +/- 0.1mm spec though.
I thought they might be tighter, at least when using "standard" sizes. Do you use the closest metric drill when "inch" sizes like this are specified?
In any event in the future I'll be sure to make any lower-tolerance holes a bit smaller and ream them true myself.
Posted By: Ed Heitzman on Jul 27, 2010 02:00AMReply
Hello again Ed,
(I amended my post above)
When you have specific needs concerning really tight tolerance holes, it is always good to leave a note in the "Remarks for Production" box in the panel properties, or to give us a call.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 27, 2010 05:48PMReply
I guess this isn't a bug, but an annoyance. The edit boxes in some dialogs aren't wide enough.
I assume this would be in several places, but the one that "bugs" me most is in the "Move Selected Objects" dialog.
e.g. If I change the absolute X position to say 11.9500 inches, it's not too bad while still in the dialog (left-justified with the 4th decimal point half cut off); but if I reenter the dialog the X value appears as "1.9600" with the most significant digit completely cut off. You need to enter the edit box and scroll it over to see the most significant digit.
The edit boxes simply need to be a bit wider.
Posted By: Ed Heitzman on Jul 26, 2010 08:25PM Category: Front Panel Designer
When you click back into the dialog box to edit the X value, the number will move around according to where you click. If for instance in 11.9512", you click on the very right edge of the 2, then the leading 1 will get cut off. If, however, you click on the decimal point, you will lose the 2 at the end of the number.
For those of us (like me) used to clicking on the right edge of a given number to edit it, this will take some getting used to!
While we could widen the box, when you start working on huge panels in metric, the boxes would need to get super wide to sufficiently display all the entries.
We will be sure to work on this for the next revision of the software, thanks for letting us know!
I hope this helps.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 27, 2010 05:53PMReply
I really like the idea of your side panel extrusions. They seem affordable, and I'm sure they are very solid. For the purposes of making rack cases however, the costs of top/bottom panels adds up very quickly.
For my purposes, I don't have any special requirements for top/bottom panels. Perhaps a few air vent holes, but I don't really even care where they are located. For an 11" deep 19" wide rack case, the cost of the top and bottom panels comes to around $60 a piece, which is about the same as front/rear panels. That makes a 1U enclosure somewhere around $260.
I like the flexibility of front and back panel design, but I wonder if one of the following could be a solution to reduce cost and increase sales:
1. Manufacture standard rack width top/bottom panels similar to your extrusions: in one big long sheet, and then cut to the customer's length requirements.
2. Keep several standard length top/bottom rack panels (like 6", 10", 13", 16", 20"), and manufacture them in bulk so that you can make them more cheaply and offer them more cheaply.
3. Source some standard length top/bottom rack panels (like 6", 10", 13", 16", 20") in steel from another supplier in bulk and just resell them. This way they could be thinner (0.06") and cheaper.
As is, I'm probably going to end up purchasing a stock rack chassis from somewhere else and then either send a front and rear panel to you to customize or just drill it myself. If you offered simple stock top/bottom panels at $10 a piece, an enclosure would be around $160, which would be affordable enough where I would be much more likely to get a custom chassis from you.
I have no idea how many rack cases you sell, but it seems that if you sell enough to warrant having some top/bottom panels in bulk then you could sell more.
Posted By: Eric Pruett on Jul 24, 2010 07:46PM Category: Whishes
Thanks for the input! While I can sympathize with you in terms of the costs associated with fabricating a custom enclosure, cutting a pre-cut sheet to various lengths would add significant time (and cost) to the process of enclosure fabrication. For a 19" wide rack enclosure, the top and bottom panels would need some mounting holes for the housing brackets, and adding these after a sheet is cut out would raise the price significantly.
This caveat makes the bulk purchasing/manufacturing less advantageous. When you add in the observation that nearly all of our rack panel boxes are made with different depths, we end up holding onto significant amounts of additional material.
If you wanted to use our extrusions, front panels, and back panels, you could investigate obtaining raw 1.5mm aluminum provided elsewhere for your top and bottom panels.
You could also likely purchase and machine perforated sheet on your own for this application.
Hopefully this is helpful!
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 26, 2010 07:25PMReply
Any chance you will be adding the ability to Laser Image/Engrave an anodized panel vs using an engraving tool and infill? This should be more economical and a lower cost for the customer while stillreatining the excellant machining you provide.
Posted By: Jeff Wilson on Jul 10, 2010 06:01PM Category: Production
Hello again Jeff,
We do not foresee purchasing a laser engraver any time in the near future.
While the actual purchase price of an engraving machine is less expensive than a mill, the additional time of moving and positioning a piece of material in a second machine would wipe out any possible cost savings. The time taken to engrave text into a given panel is not generally cost prohibitive, and this process is completed without additional handling of the panel.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 12, 2010 08:31PMReply
Laser engraving machine, using a laser engraving technology equipment for carving materials. Laser engraving machine is different from mechanical engraving machine and other traditional way of manual sculpture, mechanical engraving machine is the use of CNC machines, such as high hard just high hardness materials such as diamond to sculpt low hardness of other things. And artful and laser engraving machine is using the heat energy laser on the material to engraving, laser in the laser engraving machine is its core. In general, the use of laser engraving machine, broader and higher precision carving, carving speed is more quickly. And compared with the traditional way of manual sculpture, laser engraving engraving effect can be done very exquisite, no less manual sculpture of the art. It is because the laser engraving machine has so many advantages, so now the application of laser engraving machine has gradually replaced the traditional equipment and methods. Be the main engraving equipment. Is laser cutting/engraving processing technology :badgrin:
Posted By: ciciswift on Sep 17, 2013 09:55AMReply
Any chance you will be adding the ability for Color Printing (natural aluminum) the Front Panel similar to your competitors?
Posted By: Jeff Wilson on Jul 10, 2010 05:58PM Category: Production
There are a few layers to this question, so I will try to address them all as clearly as possible.
What we generally see offered by other companies is silk screening. Silk screening requires a fairly hefty investment with each new design, and it is generally only used when quantities are high. Also, silk screening is printed on top of the material, and it can be scraped off quite easily in many cases.
We are in the experimental phase of printing into aluminum (not on top of). This should offer an economical solution to printing a one-off prototype without a giant setup fee. This type of printing would also be less vulnerable to abrasion. Keep an eye out in 2011/2012 for more on this.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 12, 2010 08:19PMReply