Just like to add a couple of comments.
I am not a trained machinist, and as a consequence, I do not know what is acceptable finish. Fairly obviously, if you can feel ridges then it’s poor, but just what is acceptable finish I do not know. I know that the finish required is dependant on the usage, eg for a bolt it probably doesn’ need to be superfine, but for a plain bearing it will need to be somewhat better. But how much better? In my situation I can only experiment and hope for the best. I suspect that there a large number of newbies who are in the same situation, hence any pictures which show a desired, and for that matter undesired, finish will be helpful. For example, Harold Hall sometime ago did some experimenting with milling and published some photos showing the different finishes achieved on a piece of steel by milling on one direction and then in the reverse direction. This, to me, was most helpful, as were the comments about blunt cutters. As is the comment above about different suppliers supplying different versions of what was supposed to be the same steel. Pity the writer didn’t feel free to say who supplied the best, although I can understand that there could be legalistic problems.
My second comment is about David Clark saying what he thought of the designer. Good for you David. It is high time that a few more designers were told upfront about the shortcomings of their designs, and here I have in mind a semi-circular glass cover that “Erin” has. This thing is heavy, and has a silly little square glass “knob” with sloping sides. The design is such that the base of the “knob” is wider that the tip, hence your fingers simply slide off unless you squeeze very hard to get a grip. Turn the “knob” around such that the slope was in the other direction, and it would be very much easier to use. This is an example of very poor design where the designer has been more concerned with looks than practicality. Of course, “Erin” doesn’t see the problem. Mind you, I haven’t seen it around for some time,so maybe she has quietly got rid of it!
There are, of course, a lot of other items that are simply poor design, but it isn’t necessarily “looks” design. For example, I had two Maxis. In general, we found them to be very good practical cars – except that there a number of poorly engineered features under the skin of the car, eg, rubber butterfly joints that failed regularly, primary drive gear oil seal which failed regularly, etc. I’m sure we can all find examples of poor design both in the engineering and in looks/usage.
Regards,
Peter G. Shaw