Talk:Computer numerical control
 | Engineering Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Metalworking B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
DIY CNC
Hi, have you guys looked at http://www.cnczone.com Tons of people are making their own CNC machines using recycled technology. http://www.linuxcnc.org is an amazing open source Machine Control Program that lets you control almost anything. It kind of changes the social impact when thousands of people have access to this technology rather than it being only in the hands of people who have access to big gobs of money. I run my own business and use a CNC machine that I made. It only cost me less than two thousand dollars because I made it myself. Other people have made them for even less from all recycled parts and are using them to cottage manufacture things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.63 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Quite right. It is interesting to wonder where we are headed in coming decades. Things don't always turn out to have developed exactly as yesterday's futurism predicted, but they sure don't stay the same, either. — ¾-10 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia EMC disambig page links to this article, but when I looked at this article earlier today, it never mentioned EMC.
- I see that EMC, one of the links you mentioned, and a link to another open-source CNC software tool, were once in the article, but were (accidentally?) deleted[1].
- It appears to me that someone replaced those links with a link to his own commercial site. Later, someone else -- someone that didn't know about the "undo" button -- then judged that commercial link to be spam, and deleted it.×
- I restored those non-commercial links and added the other link you mentioned. I hope that helps our readers. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
While the proliferation of small CNC as noted at www.cnczone.com is minor in terms of economic impact, the numbers of people involved is becoming significant. Furthermore, it probably deserves more attention within Wikipedia simply because the orientation and demographic of Wikipedia users matches well with small CNC. People who buy $400,000 6 axis mills do not research their investment at Wikipedia. Small scale CNC people do. Note I'm referring to this as small scale CNC, not DIY CNC. I feel strongly that the turnkey offerings of companies like Sherline and Tormach, while not homebuilt, do represent the same architecture (PC Controlled) and the same community of users. I plan on adding a bit on the evolution of this aspect of CNC. --LifelongEngineer (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the short comment at the end of section Today about DIY CNC, then added a section DIY, Hobby, and Personal CNC which details the evolution of small CNC. The original reference to EMC and open source has been moved into the new section. The reference to MyNC has been removed. The MyNC link seemed to be a project of a single individual and without much following or impact on the evolution of CNC. I have also removed the reference to www.cnczone.com. While CNCZone is important to the community of hobby and personal CNC, it's not a reasonable REF since it is a major site with dozens of forums and thousands of messages. If there were an overview article or some specific reference within CNCZone, that would be another matter, but in the context of the article it would be better as a link than a reference.--LifelongEngineer (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"New Technology, pg. 47" ref
I just went through and depicted all of the refs and correlated them with the correct bibliographic entries, however this ref I couldn't correlate. If someone else knows what it is supposed to be I would appreciate their help. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Returning to the topic of the social impact of automation
It was discussed on this talk page a while back (see Talk:Numerical control/Archive 1#Recent cleanup was well-founded (drat!) but article development continues). Recently I was motivated to coalesce some info at the article "automation" that addresses the larger context (automation in general, not just NC/CNC). So I'll find a sensible way to point from this article to that discussion for readers who want more info on the topic. — ¾-10 02:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
computer numerical controlled
Is this form (computer numerical controlled) correct? It sounds awkward to me. Shouldn't the original form (computer numerical control) be kept? "Computer numerical control" is a noun (not just a noun, but can be considered as one complex noun), but, when turning it into an adjective, shouldn't it become "computer numerically controlled" if one REALLY wants to use an adjective? The unaltered form (computer numerical control) sounds better to me. Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.248.141 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're not wrong; in fact, I agree that you're right on all counts regarding what sounds better. The only asterisk to be tacked on is just that there is no "correct" and "incorrect" in the sense that you're probably expecting to find; natural language has its own well-rounded corpus (instantiating many options) despite any prescriptions that would try to guide it. We can edit this article to suit what you described, but we can't count on that lasting as new contributors come along, and we definitely shouldn't pick on them or tell them they're "wrong" for using the awkward versions. In natural usage people say/write all of the above, including the awkward ones—when they're even expanding "CNC" at all (which the initiated [those who know the subject] hardly ever do). The biggest place where the awkwardness-of-the-expanded-form question arises is in expository language (such as journalism, or this encyclopedia article) when the authors try to apply the usual convention of expanding "CNC" right at the spot of first mention, which is typical with abbreviations and acronyms in such language. Linguistically, there are several things going on at once (multivariate nature at work). The entire phrase, when used in an attributive (adjectival) position, can be treated by the brain as an invariable unit, as you pointed out (e.g., "computer numerical control machine tools" = "CNC machine tools" = no inflection needed on either), or as a phrase that requires inflection to its various component words—but there's no universally agreed natural way to do it ("computer numerical controlled"? "computer numerically controlled"?). It seems to me that the brain wants to do something with "computer" inflectionally, but can hardly decide what. Computed (as is done in "computed tomography")? Computerized? Computerizedly? (The latter works but violates English idiom, which is to say, "doesn't work"). The brain spins its wheels and stumbles along. It seems to me that often many brains simply settle for treating the expanded noun phrase as mostly invariable—at least internally invariable—but they'll tack an -ed inflection on the end because it just "feels right" to say "...controlled [noun]" as opposed to "...control [noun]". Thus we get the one whose awkward feel you pointed out. Now, let's backtrack: "Numerical control" was the earliest of the terms, and it was coined as a noun (=noun phrase) from adj+noun. When you wanted to turn it into a noun adjunct (that is, a noun used adjectivally, that is, an attributive noun), you naturally inflected "numerical" (adjective) to "numerically" (adverb) to yield "numerically controlled machine tool" (adv+adj[pp-used-adj'ly]+noun). But then people modified the term "numerical control" in retronymous fashion to yield "computer numerical control". They also could have naturally chosen to call it "computed numerical control or "computerized numerical control", but they didn't. It hardly matters, though, because with all three of those (noun sense) options, you have no natural-sounding move to make, in terms of inflecting the phrase internally, when it comes time to use the noun as a noun adjunct (that is, to use it attributively). And the people who coined the noun sense didn't think of that ahead of time. The answer, as usual in natural language, is that "you're not supposed to think about it that hard"—you're supposed to spit it out, feel uncomfortable for a split second, and move on. People who are familiar with the meaning of the term use the abbreviation anyway—not the expansion—and in that case, "CNC" (noun sense) and "CNC" (adjectival sense, that is, noun adjunct sense) are inflectionally identical, so it's a non-issue entirely. As I said, the stumbling over the expanded form is usually only a problem in expository language (most especially expository writing)—that's where it ends up being dealt with or dwelled upon. And no matter what you prescribe in that context, natural language will not consistently follow the "rule". And the great thing is that that doesn't matter—natural language doesn't have to care. "If you catch my meaning, then the language did its job." Everything else editing-wise is just ignorance of linguistic science. Unfortunately for those looking for a simple answer, there is no answer to the question of "but which way is correct?" where "correct" is defined in the sense of traditional grammar, because traditional grammar misunderstands linguistic reality. The only "answer" is that the definition of "correct" doesn't apply. Hope this is found interesting. — ¾-10 20:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I removed the -ed, not because it can be called "incorrect" so much as "deprecated by those in the industry". Which is more or less what this diff was also getting at (preferred usage), plus or minus the notion of "correct". — ¾-10 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
NOT Encycolpedic
"Enter MIT This was not an impossible problem to solve, but would require some sort of feedback system, like a selsyn, to directly measure how far the controls had actually turned. Faced with the daunting task of building such a system, "
There is no way things like this would be accepted in a acceptable encyclopedia. This article needs a MAJOR rewrite.
--69.123.205.100 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- But why? I guess you mean that WP:NPOV extends so far as not calling a task daunting. If that's basically what you mean, I think you're misinterpreting the NPOV concept. The article isn't "biased against" the task of incorporating a feedback loop (not calling it harder than it really was). It's just acknowledging the reality (the malice of inanimate objects, as M. R. James might have called it). If you removed this way of phrasing, the next problem you would have is that the average reader would have no concept of whether a small problem or a large problem was being faced (being naturally unknowledgeable about the topic). In other words, how else would we succinctly convey that this was a "major surgery" problem as opposed to a "band-aid" problem? — ¾-10 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that this article feels too dramatic, which (in my mind at least) lowers the overall credibility of the article. I don't know exactly how to classify it, but the article feels a little more like an essay, or a school report, then an entry you would see in an encyclopedia. And perhaps the word 'large' would be a synonymous but less dramatic substitute for 'daunting?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.140.4 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know, this view doesn't resonate with me. It's not inappropriate for an encyclopedia to call a task daunting if it is in fact daunting. There are many examples in engineering. The biggest ones, of course, are things like the Mercury and Apollo NASA programs, or the Hoover Dam, or the Manhattan Project; but even the countless smaller and less famous ones were daunting for the people working on them. For example, the program to develop the 747 was a hair-raising gamble for Boeing, and there were a lot of sleepless nights for the engineers and machinists involved. The effort to write the OED was daunting. There are others who share the register aversion, but given that it's artifactual (coming from enculturation rather than inherent in reality), I think it's best to move beyond it and just be completely honest in Wikipedia articles, and call a spade a spade. This register aversion always makes me think of the scene in the Wizard of Oz film where the wizard yells to the visitors to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He's insecurely trying to hide reality from them because it won't be as impressive as his puffed-up pretense. But the attempt is futile, because it assumes that the visitors are dumb enough to fall for it. Whereas they're actually smart enough to trust their own eyes. I think here in the internet era, where overt cynicism and iconoclasm have now been a part of our culture for a long while, and many readers have plenty of intelligence (if not knowledge of the specific topic they came to read about), most Wikipedia readers would rather just hear the truth via "le mot juste" rather than be condescended to by the wizard trying to put on airs. They actually find it more credible to hear the straight dope than to know that the tone of the phrasing is going to have to be discounted as a stylized convention (which is actually a kind of institutionalized dishonesty in a way—a lack of credibility in its own right). I guess what I'm trying to say (maybe not succeeding too well) is that this register aversion feels to me like Bowdler's attitude toward Shakespeare. Although he didn't know it, the attitude was never as necessary as he thought. And when people read EULAs or website terms-&-conditions, they actually find it refreshing to find "normal people's register" as opposed to fossilized or evasive legalese (which they know darn well is not to be trusted). — ¾-10 02:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)